Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AFT Pharmaceuticals (AU) Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 672 File number: NSD 252 of 2019
Judge: GLEESON J
Date of judgment: 21 May 2020
Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – applicant seeking declaration that there is adequate scientific foundation for certain statements in advertisement for analgesic drug – where applicant previously contravened the Australian Consumer Law (Sch 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)) and is permanently restrained from making certain representations – whether proceeding barred by doctrine of res judicata or subject to issue estoppel – whether new advertising materials convey restrained representation – whether adequate scientific foundation for new statements of superiority over certain other analgesics – application refused. CONSUMER LAW – cross-claim – whether cross-respondent's new advertisements for analgesic drug contravenes Australian Consumer Law – misleading or deceptive conduct – false or misleading representations – whether adequate scientific foundation for representation as to superiority of applicant's analgesic over certain other analgesics – contraventions found
Legislation: Australian Consumer Law (Sch 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)) ss 18, 29, 33
Cases cited: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 634 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Harris Scarfe Australia Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 54 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Signature Security Group Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 3 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54; (2013) 250 CLR 640 AFT Pharmaceuticals (AU) Pty Limited v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited [2020] FCAFC 45 Blair v Curran [1939] HCA 23; (1939) 62 CLR 464 iNova Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1209 Jackson v Goldsmith [1950] HCA 22; (1950) 81 CLR 446 Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd v Cassidy [2003] FCAFC 289; (2003) 135 FCR 1 National Exchange Pty Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2004] FCAFC 90 Re Twenty-First Larena Pty Ltd; Maximova v Goodwin & Ors [2010] VSC 84 Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited v AFT Pharmaceuticals (AU) Pty Limited [2018] FCA 1552 Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd v GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 138 Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd v Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc [1992] FCA 630; (1992) 38 FCR 1 Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 28; (2015) 256 CLR 507 Trade Practices Commission v QDSV Holdings Pty Ltd (t/as Bush Friends Australia) [1994] FCA 1562 Trawl Industries of Australia Pty Ltd v Effem Food Pty Ltd [1992] FCA 272
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