GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited (No 3) [2018] FCA 183

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited (No 3) [2018] FCA 183 File number: NSD 1090 of 2015

Judge: FOSTER J

Date of judgment: 28 February 2018

Catchwords: COSTS – whether, in the circumstances of the present case, it is appropriate to order costs by way of a lump sum and on an indemnity basis – whether successful applicants should not have all of their costs PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – consideration given to the appropriate form of declaration and injunction in respect of a comparative advertising campaign containing claims which were ostensibly based upon a body of scientific knowledge

Legislation: Australian Consumer Law, ss 18, 29(1)(a), 29(1)(g) and 237 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 43 Federal Court Rules 2011, rr 1.37, 25.01, 25.14 and 40.02, Pt 25 and Pt 40 Federal Court Rules, O 62 r 4

Cases cited: GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited (No 2) [2018] FCA 1 Alexander v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority (No 3) [2010] FCA 506 Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No 2) (1995) 57 FCR 119 Clipsal Australia Pty Ltd v Clipso Electrical Pty Ltd (No 4) [2017] FCA 436 De Brett Seafood Pty Limited v Qantas Airways Limited (No 7) [2015] FCA 979 Diakyne Pty Ltd v Ralph (No 2) [2009] FCA 780 Gryst v Dromana Estate Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 1499 Kazar v Kargarian (2011) 197 FCR 113 Laminar Air Flow Pty Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks (No 2) [2018] FCA 38 LFDB v SM (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 207 Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 146 Seven Network Limited v News Limited [2007] FCA 2059 Sony Entertainment (Australia) Limited v Smith (2005) 215 ALR 788