Scroll To Top
Home \Litigation \  Advanced Search

Country: Australia

Litigation SearchRefine/Modify Search

Find decisions that have...

(E.g., Keywords, citations, decision titles, or parties)
OrOr

But don't show pages that have...

Other Search Criteria:

from:to:

Search Results Results 1-10 of 95

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. The Joystick Company Pty Ltd. [Australia] [May 02, 2017]

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission successfully took action against an e-cigarette company for making false and misleading statements in violation of the Australian Consumer Law. The e-cigarette company stated on its website and in a YouTube video that its products did not contain carcinogens and toxic substances found in traditional tobacco cigarettes. 

In this decision, the court accepted the Commission’s recommendations and ordered the company to stop making statements that its products do not contain carcinogens and toxic substances for a period of three years. The court found that the company had no evidence to support its statements, which had the potential to mislead consumers who might not have purchased the products if they had known about the presence of these chemicals. Additionally, the court ordered the company to include information on its website about this decision for 90 days. Finally, the court fined the company $50,000 and its director $10,000. 

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. Social-Lites Pty Ltd [Australia] [May 02, 2017]

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission successfully took action against an e-cigarette company for making false and misleading statements in violation of the Australian Consumer Law. The e-cigarette company stated on its website and in a YouTube video that its products did not contain carcinogens and toxic substances found in traditional tobacco cigarettes. 

In this decision, the court accepted the Commission’s recommendations and ordered the company to stop making statements that its products do not contain carcinogens and toxic substances for a period of three years. The court found that the company had no evidence to support its statements, which had the potential to mislead consumers who might not have purchased the products if they had known about the presence of these chemicals. Additionally, the court ordered the company to include information on its website about this decision for 90 days. Finally, the court fined the company $50,000 and its director $10,000. 

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. Burden [Australia] [May 02, 2017]

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission successfully took action against an e-cigarette company for making false and misleading statements in violation of the Australian Consumer Law. The e-cigarette company stated on its website that its products did not contain harmful chemicals and carcinogens found in traditional tobacco cigarettes. 

In this decision, the court accepted the Commission’s recommendations and ordered the company to stop making statements that its products do not contain harmful chemicals and carcinogens for a period of three years. The court found that the company had no evidence to support its statements, which had the potential to mislead consumers who might not have purchased the products if they had known about the presence of these chemicals. Additionally, the court ordered the company to include information on its website about this decision for 90 days. Finally, the court fined the company $40,000 and its director $15,000. 

De Bruyn v. Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health [Australia] [March 22, 2016]

A patient at an Australian mental health facility sued to block implementation of the facility’s smoke-free policy. The court upheld the smoke-free policy because: (1) it was within the authority of the mental health hospital to adopt the policy; (2) the state tobacco control law did not create a right to smoke in mental health hospitals; and (3) the hospital properly considered the impact that the policy might have on the patient’s human rights, such as the right to dignity. In particular, the court found that the hospital gathered extensive input on policy over a four-year period and that the policy would be implemented along with psychological and other support systems, including nicotine replacement therapy and cessation counseling. 

Philip Morris Asia v Australia [Australia] [December 17, 2015]

Philip Morris Asia challenged Australia's tobacco plain packaging legislation under a 1993 Bilateral Investment Treaty between Australia and Hong Kong. This was the first investor-state dispute brought against Australia.

Philip Morris Asia initiated the arbitration in November 2011, immediately after the legislation was adopted. Australia responded with jurisdictional objections and sought a preliminary ruling on these issues. The tribunal bifurcated the proceedings and on 18 December 2015 issued a unanimous decision agreeing with Australia's position that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.

The main objection to jurisdiction was that at the time the dispute arose, Philip Morris Asia was not a foreign investor in Australia. The government announced its decision to proceed with plain packaging legislation in April 2010. At that time, 100% of the shares in Philip Morris Asia were owned by the parent company located in Switzerland (which had no investment treaty with Australia). Philip Morris International then undertook a restructure in 2011 which meant that Philip Morris Asia, located in Hong Kong, became the sole owner of the shares in the Australian subsidiaries. 

The Tribunal found that Claimant’s restructure was for the principal, if not the sole, purpose of gaining protection under the Treaty so as to bring a claim against the plain packaging legislation. As such Philip Morris Asia's claim was an 'abuse of rights'. This concluded the arbitration in Australia's favour, subject to finalisation of the costs claim.

Bhandari v. Laming [Australia] [October 16, 2015]

A landlord was ordered to pay compensation to his tenant (a percentage of the rent and moving costs) for breaching a rental agreement. The tenant moved out due to an ongoing issue of smoke drifting from a downstairs apartment. The appeals panel which heard the case agreed there was a structural ventilation problem with the building which allowed smoke to flow into the apartment, making it unfit for habitation. Although the landlord was not responsible for the drifting smoke, the panel agreed that he was nevertheless responsible for providing a unit fit for habitation and dismissed the landlord’s appeal.

Australia - Plain Packaging Requirement Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging [Australia] [October 27, 2014]

Information about this decision coming soon. 

Maclean and District Bowling Club Co-operative v. Green [Australia] [August 14, 2014]

The respondent in this appeal, Ms Green, contracted lung cancer as a result of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace and her own tobacco use. She was exposed to passive smoking in the workplace for a period of about 26 years until she was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2002, and smoked somewhere between 10-50 cigarettes a day for a period of 17 years up to 1992. She was successful in her claim for workers compensation before an Arbtitrator, who found that (among other things) exposure to smoke in the workplace was a substantially contributing factor to the contraction of her disease. This was an appeal from that decision.

The respondent insurer alleged that (1) there was insufficient evidence before the Arbitrator to conclude that exposure to passive smoking in the workplace substantially contributed to Ms Green's disease; and (2) the Arbitrator gave insufficient reasons for his decision.

In this decision, Deputy President Roche found that there was sufficient evidence for the Arbitrator to conclude that Ms Green's employment was a substantial contributing factor to her injury. However, Deputy President Roche agreed with the appellant that the Arbitrator gave insufficient reasons for his decision, and therefore remitted the matter to a different Arbitrator for re-determination.

Hawkins v. Van Heerden [Australia] [June 24, 2014]

The defendant was previously convicted of selling products designed to resemble a tobacco product in breach of s106(a) of the Tobacco Products Control Act 2006 (WA). The defendant had been selling e-cigarettes and nicotine-free 'e-Juice'. (See: Hawkins v Van Heerden [2014] WASC 127 (10 April 2014)).

In this decision, the Supreme Court imposed a fine of $1,750 for the offence and ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the trial and the appeal. In doing so, Pritchard J observed that it was not necessary to decide whether e-cigarettes were harmful to their users, because whether or not the product sold was harmful to human health was not an element of the offence under s106 of the Act. Rather, the purpose of s106 is to discourage the promotion of tobacco products and smoking by banning the sale of products which resemble tobacco products and contribute to normalising the activity of smoking.

Philip Morris Asia Limited v. Commonwealth of Australia (Procedural Order No.8) [Australia] [April 14, 2014]

Philip Morris Asia (PMA) commenced arbitral proceedings against Australia in relation to Australia's Tobacco Plain Packaging Act and associated regulations, pursuant to the Agreement between the Government of Hong Kong and the Government of Australia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (the Treaty). An ad hoc Tribunal has been established to adjudicate the dispute, with its registry in the Permanent Court of Arbitration. For background on the case and earlier Procedural Orders, see related case: Philip Morris Asia Limited v. Commonwealth of Australia (Procedural Order No.4).

In this decision, the Tribunal ruled on Australia's request to have the proceedings bifurcated between arguments on jurisdiction and arguments on the merits. PMA objected to the hearing being bifurcated, primarily on the grounds that the issues to be decided significantly overlap and that Australia's jurisdictional arguments are not substantial.

Australia alleges that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the dispute on 3 grounds, as follows.

1) First, Australia alleges that PMA's "investment" in Australia was not admitted in accordance with the Treaty because PMA's Statutory Notice under Australia's foreign investment rules contained false and misleading assertions as to the purpose of the investment. Australia alleges that PMA's true purpose, which should have been stated on the Statutory Notice, was to place itself in a position where it could bring this claim under the Treaty.

2) Secondly, Australia alleges that PMA's claim falls outside the Treaty because it relates to a pre-existing dispute; or, alternatively, that it amounts to an abuse of right because PMA re-structured its investments with the express purpose of bringing this claim, after the Australian Government had announced its intention to implement plain packaging.

3) Thirdly, Australia alleges that PMA's assets - being only its shares in PML and PM Australia - do not constitute "investments" under the Treaty because PML and PM Australia's investments do not themselves enjoy the protections of the Treaty (not being investments in Hong Kong).

In this Order, the Tribunal ruled that Australia's first and second jurisdictional arguments should be bifurcated and heard first, but that the third argument should be joined with the merits of the dispute. The Tribunal reasoned that if Australia wins on either of the first or second arguments, it would dispose of the entire proceeding, whereas Australia winning the third argument would not be dispositive.

The Tribunal subsequently set down the hearing on jurisdiction for February 16, 2015 (see Procedural Order No.9, uploaded here under "Related Documents").

The materials and analysis available at this website are for informational and educational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice.