Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 992 File numbers: NSD 2124 of 2016
Judge: GLEESON J
Date of judgment: 28 June 2019
Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – misleading and deceptive conduct – where the applicant alleges contraventions of ss 18, 29(1) and 33 of the Australian Consumer Law, being Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (ACL) arising out of the respondent's promotion of flushable wipes – where the applicant alleges that flushable wipes caused harm to household and municipal sewerage systems – whether representations were with respect to a future matter pursuant to s 4 of the ACL – whether flushability representation was false, misleading or deceptive – flushability representation was not false, misleading or deceptive
Legislation: Australian Consumer Law, being Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) ss 4, 18, 29(1), 33 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140
Cases cited: Aldi Foods Pty Ltd v Moroccanoil Israel Ltd [2018] FCAFC 93; (2018) 358 ALR 683 Amaca Pty Ltd (under NSW administered winding up) v Booth [2011] HCA 53; (2011) 246 CLR 36 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 634; (2014) 317 ALR 73 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dukemaster Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 682 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Giraffe World Australia Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1161; (1999) 95 FCR 302 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL (No 12) [2016] FCA 822 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Purple Harmony Plates Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1062 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2007] FCA 1904; (2007) 244 ALR 470 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TF Woollam & Son Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 973; (2011) 196 FCR 212 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54; (2013) 250 CLR 640 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Turi Foods Pty Ltd (No 4) [2013] FCA 665 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis (No 8) [2016] FCA 1023; (2016) 336 ALR 209 Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 25; (2009) 238 CLR 304 Commissioner for Fair Trading, Department of Commerce v Perrett [2007] NSWSC 1130 GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited (No 2) [2018] FCA 1 McGrath v Australian Naturalcare Products Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 2; (2008) 165 FCR 230 Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd v GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 138 Roads and Traffic Authority v Royal [2008] HCA 19; (2008) 245 ALR 653 Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Limited v LG Electronics Australia Pty Limited [2015] FCA 227; (2015) 113 IPR 11 Specsavers v Luxottica [2013] FCA 648
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