Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Homeopathy Plus! Australia Pty Limited [2014] FCA 1412

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Homeopathy Plus! Australia Pty Limited [2014] FCA 1412

By publishing or causing to be published three articles containing representations that the whooping cough vaccine was short-lived, unreliable, and ineffective, and that homeopathic treatments were a safe and effective alternative with a reasonable basis in medical science, the respondents engaged in misleading,...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; First Respondent: Homeopathy Plus! Australia Pty Limited; Second Respondent: Frances Mercia Sheffield
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Liability Judgment on Contraventions; Directions Given for Penalty Phase
Outcome
Contravention of ss 18 and 29 of the ACL established; declarations granted; matter listed for directions regarding penalties and final orders.
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, False or Misleading Representations, Trade or Commerce, Evidence, Expert Evidence Admissibility
Consumer Law Misleading or Deceptive Conduct False or Misleading Representations Trade or Commerce Evidence Expert Evidence Admissibility

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 34 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Applicant

Homeopathy Plus! Australia Pty Limited

First Respondent

Frances Mercia Sheffield

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Liability Judgment on Contraventions; Directions Given for Penalty Phase

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether representations made about the effectiveness of the whooping cough vaccine and homeopathic alternatives were misleading, deceptive, or false under sections 18 and 29 of the Australian Consumer Law; whether such representations were made in trade or commerce; admissibility and sufficiency of expert evidence supporting claims made by respondents

Ratio Decidendi

By publishing or causing to be published three articles containing representations that the whooping cough vaccine was short-lived, unreliable, and ineffective, and that homeopathic treatments were a safe and effective alternative with a reasonable basis in medical science, the respondents engaged in misleading, deceptive, or likely misleading conduct, and made false or misleading representations in trade or commerce, contrary to sections 18 and 29(1)(a), (b), and (g) of the Australian Consumer Law. There was no reasonable basis in medical science for the claims regarding homeopathy, the vaccine was shown to be effective by high-level evidence, and neither the purported context of...

Court Disposition

Contravention of ss 18 and 29 of the ACL established; declarations granted; matter listed for directions regarding penalties and final orders.

Orders

  • Declaration that the First and Second Respondents have in trade and commerce engaged in misleading, deceptive, or likely misleading and deceptive conduct and made false or misleading representations contrary to sections 18 and 29(1)(a), (b), (g) of the ACL by publishing the relevant articles on...
  • Matter to be listed for directions to timetable further evidence and submissions regarding penalties, injunctive and other final orders.