Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Jayco Corporation Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 494

This was an interlocutory decision in ACCC proceedings against Jayco. The underlying case concerns whether Jayco’s advertising for certain recreational vehicles conveyed misleading messages about off-road capability and terrain use. The Court was not deciding whether those allegations were true. It was deciding two procedural questions shortly before trial.

The first question was whether parts of Jayco’s expert evidence about the RVs’ suitability for off-road use and different terrain should be excluded in advance under section 192A of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), or alternatively under section 135(c). The second question was whether the Court should conduct a view of certain RVs during the trial under rule 14.03 of the Federal Court Rules and section 53 of the Evidence Act.

The ACCC alleged that Jayco made misleading design and terrain capability representations about its Outback, Cross Trak and All Terrain RVs. According to the judgment, the ACCC said Jayco’s promotional words, statements and images had the effect of representing that the relevant RVs were designed for use off-road and or on 4WD only tracks. It also alleged that using the words 'All Terrain' represented that a particular model was designed for use on all types of terrain, including 4WD only tracks.

The ACCC’s case relied heavily on Jayco’s service and warranty terms. The warranty said, among other things, that Jayco RVs were not designed for hard impact or heavy landings, rutted roads and tracks, or use on four-wheel drive only tracks, and should not be towed on those roads or tracks. It also said no Jayco RV should be exposed to water crossings at or above body floor level. For the Outback range, the warranty referred to limited use on unsealed roads. For the Cross Trak and All Terrain models, it referred to travel on gravel or graded unsealed roads with minor undulations, but said they were not suitable for tight undulating tracks or roads.

Jayco denied that the alleged representations were conveyed. It said the promotional material overwhelmingly depicted the RVs on terrain consistent with their design capabilities. It also said the RVs were designed to be suitable for some off-road settings and that such use was covered by the warranty. In its response, Jayco pointed to design features said to enable towing beyond sealed bitumen roads, including higher ground clearance, enhanced suspension, protective side checker plates and more strong tyres. For the All Terrain model, Jayco also referred to features permitting increased off-grid use, including larger battery capacity.

That set up the procedural fight. Jayco had filed expert reports addressing a practical question: to what extent each relevant RV was suitable or not suitable to be taken off road, and over what types of terrain it could be towed by an appropriate vehicle. The ACCC tried to stop that evidence before trial. It argued that the case was about design, not later expert opinions about suitability, and that dealing with the evidence would add unnecessary time and cost.

The first issue was whether the Court should make an advance ruling under section 192A of the Evidence Act. That section allows a court, if appropriate, to rule on admissibility or related evidence questions before the evidence is actually adduced at trial. The ACCC argued that Jayco’s 'Suitability Evidence' was irrelevant under sections 55 and 56 because it could not rationally affect the assessment of whether the RVs were designed for certain use. In the ACCC’s view, the real issue was design, and the best evidence of design was what the warranty said.

Alternatively, the ACCC argued that even if the evidence had some relevance, it should be excluded under section 135(c) because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of undue waste of time. The ACCC put on evidence that responding to the suitability evidence would cost between $42,500 and $50,500 in expert and legal fees and would take between half a day and a full day at trial.

The second issue was whether the Court should conduct a view of certain Jayco RVs during the trial. Jayco sought an inspection of four RVs to help the Court understand the kinds of features referred to in the evidence. The proposed view was to take place in the Hellenic Museum car park opposite the Federal Court building in Melbourne and was expected to take no more than one hour. The ACCC opposed that proposal.

Importantly, both applications were about case management and trial conduct. They were not about whether the advertising was lawful. That is why this judgment should be read as a procedural case note, not as a final statement on the merits of the consumer law allegations.

Justice Bennett dismissed the ACCC’s interlocutory application. The Court refused to make the advance ruling sought under section 192A and also refused to exclude the evidence under section 135(c). The judge accepted that there was force in the ACCC’s argument and said the ACCC’s position might ultimately succeed at trial. But the Court held that it was not appropriate to decide the issue in advance on the material then before it.

The main reason was that the relevance question depended on how the pleadings, agreed facts, warranty wording and other evidence would work together once fully ventilated at trial. The evidence had not yet been fully read, explored or tested. The case had also been pleaded by concise statement, which the Court said was less detailed and granular than a statement of claim and defence, making it harder to draw the bright line the ACCC wanted between 'design' and 'suitability'.

The judgment is particularly useful on the relationship between design and suitability. The ACCC argued that suitability evidence could not rationally affect whether the RVs were designed for certain use. The Court did not finally reject that argument, but said there may be a relationship between design and suitability. In this case, Jayco had put in issue the way the RVs operated, their design features, and whether they were designed to be suitable for some off-road settings. Because of the way Jayco framed its defence, evidence about how the design operated in particular environments might be relevant. The judge said that relationship might later prove slight or entirely irrelevant, but it was too early to foreclose it.

The Court also noted that some expert evidence already relied on, or not objected to, appeared to travel into questions of suitability for different off-road environments. That added to the risk of error in trying to isolate and exclude Jayco’s suitability evidence before trial.

On the time and cost argument, the Court was not persuaded that exclusion was justified. The judge said the estimated maximum cost of $50,500 was not likely to be significant in the overall costs of the proceeding or the application, and would largely be recovered if the ACCC succeeded. The Court also did not accept that excluding the evidence would save as much trial time as the ACCC suggested. In any event, the current trial plan already accommodated the evidence within the allocated hearing time.

On the separate application for a view, the Court allowed it. The judge considered the issue relatively finely balanced and said there was little prejudice to either party whether there was or was not a view. Because the draft trial plan permitted it within the current allocation, the Court ordered that a view be held at trial, subject to conditions. Those conditions included that any statements made during the view would be submissions only, not evidence, and that any features or aspects of the vehicles to be displayed had to be identified to the opposing party beforehand by reference to an agreed agenda.

The orders are worth noting because they show exactly what changed procedurally. First, the Court dismissed the interlocutory application dated 18 March 2026. That means the ACCC did not obtain an advance ruling excluding Jayco’s suitability evidence.

Second, the Court ordered a view at the trial under rule 14.03 of the Federal Court Rules and or section 53(1) of the Evidence Act. The view was to take place at the Hellenic Museum Car Park, 280 William Street, Melbourne on or about 11 May 2026, or as otherwise directed during the hearing. Any statements made during the view were to be in the nature of submissions only, not evidence. Any features or aspects of the vehicles to be displayed had to be identified to the opposing party before the view by reference to an agreed agenda. Both parties were to have the opportunity to make submissions at the view, subject to the Court’s overall management of the matter.

Third, either party could seek a costs order for the interlocutory application by filing short written submissions within seven days, with short responsive submissions within two days after that. If no submissions were filed, the costs of the application would be reserved. Any costs issue would be determined without a further hearing.

Fourth, the parties were directed to confer with a view to agreeing a timetable for any responsive evidence by the ACCC in relation to the suitability evidence. If they could not agree, they were required to notify Justice Bennett’s chambers by 4.00 pm on 1 May 2026. This is a practical reminder that losing an evidence exclusion application can have immediate timetable consequences for the other side.

The first commercial lesson is about documents and conduct working together. The allegations in the underlying case show how a regulator may compare the overall impression created by marketing with the limits set out in a warranty or technical documentation. A business can create risk if its product name, imagery and promotional copy suggest broad capability while its warranty narrows that capability in important ways. The Court did not decide that issue here, but the dispute itself is a strong reminder to review the whole customer message, not just isolated statements.

The second lesson is to be careful with broad capability labels. Terms such as 'all terrain', 'off-road', 'heavy duty', 'industrial', 'weatherproof' or similar descriptors can carry a wide consumer meaning. If the product is only suitable for some conditions and not others, that limitation should be reflected consistently across advertising, specifications, warranty wording and sales communications.

The third lesson is about evidence strategy. This ruling shows that courts may be reluctant to shut out technical evidence too early where the pleaded issues are not highly granular and where the relationship between design, operation and suitability needs fuller examination. If your business is defending a product capability case, technical evidence about how the product performs in practice may still matter, even if the claimant tries to frame the dispute more narrowly.

At the same time, businesses should not take comfort from the fact that evidence survived an interlocutory challenge. Surviving a procedural application is not the same as winning at trial. The safer commercial approach remains prevention: align product naming, marketing, warranty exclusions, user instructions and staff sales scripts before products go to market.

This page is based on the Federal Court judgment in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Jayco Corporation Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 494, dated 22 April 2026. The judgment records an interlocutory ruling on an application for an advance ruling under section 192A of the Evidence Act, an alternative exclusion argument under section 135(c), and an application for a view under rule 14.03 of the Federal Court Rules and section 53 of the Evidence Act.

The judgment does not provide the final determination of the ACCC’s substantive Australian Consumer Law allegations. Readers should therefore treat this page as a procedural case note only. Any later trial judgment or final orders may materially affect the overall significance of the proceeding.