Unilever Australia Ltd v PZ Cussons Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 809

Unilever Australia Ltd v PZ Cussons Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 809

Both parties established prima facie cases of misleading conduct, but the balance of convenience did not favour granting interlocutory relief to either party. The utility of interlocutory orders was doubtful given the capacity for an early final hearing, so both applications for interlocutory injunctions were dismissed and the matter set for hearing at the earliest possible date.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Commercial Dispute / Interlocutory Application (injunction), Reasons for Judgment, Procedural Directions
Outcome
Applications for interlocutory relief by both parties dismissed. Costs in the cause. Directions given for parties to prepare for an early final hearing.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'comparative Advertising' 'balance of Convenience']
['practice and Procedure' 'trade Practices' 'consumer Law'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'comparative Advertising' 'balance of Convenience']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Commercial Dispute / Interlocutory Application (injunction), Reasons for Judgment, Procedural Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant (Unilever) established a prima facie case that the respondent (Cussons) engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by use of comparative advertising on its product label' 'Whether the respondent (Cussons) established a prima facie case that the applicant (Unilever) engaged in misleading conduct in its product marketing' 'Whether the balance of convenience favours granting interlocutory relief to either party']

Ratio Decidendi

Both parties established prima facie cases of misleading conduct, but the balance of convenience did not favour granting interlocutory relief to either party. The utility of interlocutory orders was doubtful given the capacity for an early final hearing, so both applications for interlocutory injunctions were dismissed and the matter set for hearing at the earliest possible date.

Court Disposition

Applications for interlocutory relief by both parties dismissed. Costs in the cause. Directions given for parties to prepare for an early final hearing.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application for interlocutory relief be dismissed." "The respondent's cross-claim for interlocutory relief be dismissed." 'The costs of the application and cross-claim for interlocutory relief be costs in the cause.' 'The parties consult and send to the Associate of Justice Tamberlin Short Minutes...