Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited v AFT Pharmaceuticals (AU) Pty Limited [2018] FCA 1552

Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited v AFT Pharmaceuticals (AU) Pty Limited [2018] FCA 1552

AFT's Maxigesic advertisements conveyed, without adequate scientific foundation, representations of superiority over Nuromol and other combination analgesics, and over monotherapies, supported by cited studies, thereby contravening ss 18, 29(1)(a), 29(1)(g), and 33 of the Australian Consumer Law. Reckitt's Nuromol advertisements conveyed superiority representations not supported by adequate comparative scientific evidence, but no orders are made against Reckitt at this stage.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment Following Trial (reasons for Judgment and Orders)
Outcome
Contraventions of Australian Consumer Law by AFT found; orders for parties to file short minutes of orders for further conduct of the proceeding.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'comparative Advertising' 'adequate Scientific Foundation' 'australian Consumer Law' 'therapeutic Goods Regulation']
['consumer Law' 'commercial Law'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'comparative Advertising' 'adequate Scientific Foundation' 'australian Consumer Law' 'therapeutic Goods Regulation']

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

Civil / Judgment Following Trial (reasons for Judgment and Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's advertisements for Maxigesic contravened the Australian Consumer Law through misleading/deceptive conduct and false representations regarding comparative efficacy and scientific foundation." "Whether the applicant's advertisements for Nuromol contravened the Australian Consumer Law through misleading/deceptive conduct and false representations regarding comparative efficacy and scientific foundation."]

Ratio Decidendi

AFT's Maxigesic advertisements conveyed, without adequate scientific foundation, representations of superiority over Nuromol and other combination analgesics, and over monotherapies, supported by cited studies, thereby contravening ss 18, 29(1)(a), 29(1)(g), and 33 of the Australian Consumer Law. Reckitt's Nuromol advertisements conveyed superiority representations not supported by adequate comparative scientific evidence, but no orders are made against Reckitt at this stage.

Court Disposition

Contraventions of Australian Consumer Law by AFT found; orders for parties to file short minutes of orders for further conduct of the proceeding.

Orders

  • ['Within 14 days of the date of this order, the parties file and serve short minutes of orders to give effect to these reasons and for the further conduct of the proceeding.']