Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Turi Foods Pty Ltd (No 4) [2013] FCA 665 Citation: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Turi Foods Pty Ltd (No 4) [2013] FCA 665
Parties: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v TURI FOODS PTY LTD (ACN 057 142 971), BAIADA POULTRY PTY LTD (ACN 002 925 948), BARTTER ENTERPRISES PTY LIMITED (ACN 000 451 374) and AUSTRALIAN CHICKEN MEAT FEDERATION INC (ABN 24 077 883 026)
File number: VID 974 of 2011
Judge: TRACEY J
Date of judgment: 8 July 2013
Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – Allegations that respondents engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, made false representations and engaged in conduct liable to mislead the public in connection with the use of the phrase "free to roam" and variants of it on packaging, in advertising and in publications – consideration of procedural matters – consideration of applicable legal principles – whether generally and in the context of packaging, print advertising and website publication the phrase "free to roam" was apt to mislead or deceive or was false – whether use of the phrase "free to roam" was liable to mislead public as to nature and characteristics of product – whether fourth respondent able to rely on "media safe harbour defence"
Legislation: Australian Consumer Law – ss 18, 29, 33 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – ss 52, 53, 55, 65A Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No 2) 1984 (Cth)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate