Federal Court of Australia
Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Ltd (Costs of Remitter) [2025] FCA 891
File number(s): | NSD 724 of 2016 |
Judgment of: | PERRAM J |
Date of judgment: | 4 August 2025 |
Catchwords: | COSTS – representative proceedings – where the High Court remitted to the primary judge the question of the applicant’s damages for redetermination – costs orders in respect of the remitter |
Cases cited: | Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 715 |
Division: | General Division |
Registry: | New South Wales |
National Practice Area: | Commercial and Corporations |
Sub-area: | Regulator and Consumer Protection |
Number of paragraphs: | 3 |
Date of last submission/s: | 25 July 2025 |
Date of hearing: | Determined on the papers |
Counsel for the Applicant: | Dr F Roughley SC with Mr S Gerber |
Solicitor for the Applicant: | Corrs Chambers Westgarth |
Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr M Costello KC with Mr J Waller |
Solicitor for the Respondent: | Allens |
ORDERS
NSD 724 of 2016 | ||
| ||
BETWEEN: | BILJANA CAPIC Applicant | |
AND: | FORD MOTOR COMPANY OF AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 004 116 223 Respondent | |
order made by: | PERRAM J |
DATE OF ORDER: | 4 August 2025 |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Each party is to bear their own costs of the remitter.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
PERRAM J
1 In Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 715, I determined that Ms Capic had paid $6,820.91 more for her vehicle than it was worth. Appellate litigation in the Full Court and the High Court ensued following which the High Court remitted the matter to me to determine how much Ms Capic’s reduction in damages should be in light of its reasons.
2 At the hearing Ms Capic submitted that she should be awarded a substantially larger amount than the original $6,820.91 I had determined and Ford submitted that there should be a substantial reduction. I determined that her reduction in damages should be assessed at $6,820.91, i.e, the same as original amount. Neither party obtained the result which they sought. Ms Capic now submits that it was Ford who sought on appeal to disturb the original figure and that the outcome showed that it had lost that campaign.
3 However, the question of who won and who lost the appellate litigation has been determined and is not the debate I had to resolve. On the debate before me Ms Capic failed to get what she wanted as did Ford. The appropriate order is that each party bear their own costs.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Perram. |
Associate:
Dated: 4 August 2025
