EOFY Sale · Save up to $750 off your legals · Ends 30 June

Claim offer
Selected cases

Federal Court of Australia · [2026] FCA 38

Capic v Ford

A Federal Court class-action judgment about Ford transmission defects, consumer guarantees, second-hand sales and reduction in value damages.

Federal Court of Australia2 Feb 2026

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • Consumer guarantee exposure can travel beyond the first sale, but the chain of title and the type of resale matter.
  • A Federal Court class-action judgment about Ford transmission defects, consumer guarantees, second-hand sales and reduction in value damages.

Use this to check

  • Consumer guarantee claims can be affected by resale, dealer involvement and chain of title.
  • A dealer who acquires goods for re-supply may break one damages pathway while creating a new consumer guarantee on later supply.
  • Class-action amendments and public awareness can affect limitation arguments.

Decision snapshot

  1. 1

    What happened

    • Capic v Ford is a long-running class action about defective DPS6 Powershift transmissions in Ford vehicles.
    • Ms Capic had already succeeded at trial in proving her vehicle was not of acceptable quality, and later appeals went to the Full Court and High Court.
    • This 2026 judgment dealt with post-judgment issues for class members, including what happens where affected vehicles were on-sold into the second-hand market, acquired by private sale or re-supplied by a dealer.
    • The Court considered whether later owners could claim reduction in value damages by reference to the original supply and whether claims by newly added class members were time barred.
  2. 2

    What the court had to decide

    • The Federal Court had to decide supplementary common questions about reduction in value damages for later owners of affected vehicles, how section 271 and section 272 of the Australian Consumer Law operate after private sale or dealer re-supply, whether new class members' claims were time barred, and whether crystallisation orders should be made.
  3. 3

    What the court decided

    • The Court resolved supplementary issues about how reduction in value damages operate for subsequent owners.
    • It rejected the idea that the same original consumer guarantee claim survives every dealer re-supply chain unchanged, while recognising that later consumer supplies can generate their own guarantee issues.
    • The parties were directed to bring in short minutes of order to give effect to the reasons.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • Consumer guarantee exposure can travel beyond the first sale, but the chain of title and the type of resale matter.
  • Businesses selling products through dealers, second-hand channels or private resale need records that show when each consumer guarantee arose and who can claim for it.

Useful next steps

  • Consumer guarantee claims can be affected by resale, dealer involvement and chain of title.
  • A dealer who acquires goods for re-supply may break one damages pathway while creating a new consumer guarantee on later supply.
  • Class-action amendments and public awareness can affect limitation arguments.
  • Manufacturers and dealers should keep product, repair and resale records long after the first sale.
  • Keep product supply, serial number, repair and warranty records by item, not only by first customer.

Practical read

This case is technical, but the practical story is familiar. A manufacturer supplied defective products, those products moved through owners over time, and later the Court had to work out who could still claim damages under the Australian Consumer Law.

The judgment shows that consumer guarantee claims are not just a first-purchaser issue. But the answer depends on the statutory pathway, the chain of title, whether someone acquired the product for re-supply, whether a fresh consumer guarantee arose and whether time limits have expired.

For businesses selling vehicles, equipment, electronics, machinery or other durable goods, this matters because product defects do not disappear after resale. Keep serial numbers, supply dates, dealer records, repair records, warranty communications and resale information. Those records can decide whether a later owner, dealer or private buyer has a claim.

Checks to run

Key points

  • Keep product supply, serial number, repair and warranty records by item, not only by first customer.
  • Track whether later sales are private sales or dealer re-supplies.
  • Review customer guarantee exposure before running recall, repair or settlement programs.
  • Preserve dealer communications about known defects and resale channels.
  • Check limitation periods before assuming old product claims are finished.

Key takeaways

  • Consumer guarantee claims can be affected by resale, dealer involvement and chain of title.
  • A dealer who acquires goods for re-supply may break one damages pathway while creating a new consumer guarantee on later supply.
  • Class-action amendments and public awareness can affect limitation arguments.
  • Manufacturers and dealers should keep product, repair and resale records long after the first sale.

Related topics

Consumer Law & TradingFood & Product ComplianceDigital & Ecommerce

How Sprintlaw can help

Regulatory ComplianceContract Review