Quinn Emanuel is conducting a class action in the Federal Court of Australia against Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited (Toyota). (The Toyota class action was formerly conducted by Gilbert + Tobin, but is now being conducted by Quinn Emanuel after the solicitor conducting the class action on behalf of the applicants and group members, Matt Mackenzie, moved from Gilbert + Tobin to Quinn Emanuel in August 2024).
The Toyota class action claims compensation (that is, money) for defects in Toyota Hilux, Fortuner and Prado vehicles with a 1GD-FTV or 2GD-FTV diesel engine acquired between 1 October 2015 and 23 April 2020 in Australia (Relevant Vehicles).
On 16 May 2022, the Federal Court of Australia delivered an important judgment in favour of the applicants and group members (Primary Judgment). The Court found that the Relevant Vehicles were not of acceptable quality because of their defective DPF systems and that their value at the time of initial supply was thereby reduced by 17.5% (measured against Average Retail Price). The Court also held that Toyota engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in connection with marketing and selling the Relevant Vehicles.
The primary judge held that eligible group members were entitled to be paid money to compensate them for the reduction in value of the Relevant Vehicles and for the excess GST group members paid as a result of acquiring their vehicles at prices which were higher than the true value of those vehicles.
On 10 June 2022, Toyota lodged an appeal from the Primary Judgment. The appeal was heard in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia from 14 to 16 November 2022.
On 27 March 2023, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia delivered judgment in respect of Toyota’s appeal from the Primary Judgment. The Full Court confirmed the primary judge’s findings that the Relevant Vehicles were not of acceptable quality because of their defective DPF systems and that their value at the time of initial supply was thereby reduced. The Full Court also confirmed the primary judge’s findings that Toyota engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in connection with marketing and selling the Relevant Vehicles.
However, the Full Court found that the amount of the reduction in value was 10%, rather than 17.5% as found by the primary judge. The Full Court also held that it is necessary and appropriate to take into account the fact that Toyota developed an effective fix for the defect in May 2020 and began offering it for free after the Relevant Period.
In April 2024, the High Court of Australia heard appeals filed by both the applicants and Toyota from the Full Court’s judgment.
The primary question to be determined by the High Court is whether and, if so how, the fix developed by Toyota should be taken into account in assessing the amount of any reduction in value damages to which group members are entitled. The applicants have also sought to have the trial judge’s assessment of the reduction in value of the Relevant Vehicles (17.5%) reinstated. Toyota did not challenge the findings that Relevant Vehicles were not of acceptable quality because of their defective DPF systems and that their value at the time of initial supply was thereby reduced.
The High Court’s judgment is currently reserved. An update will be provided once judgment has been delivered.
