Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority v Arnica Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 815

Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority v Arnica Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 815

The Court found that the respondents marketed and supplied (and proposed to continue to market and supply) unregistered veterinary chemical products, breached recall notices, and published notices in contravention of the AgVet Code. The evidential certificate and other uncontested evidence established the products were unregistered and not exempted, and the applicant was not required to disprove exceptions. The APVMA, as a Commonwealth agency, conferred jurisdiction on the Court. Injunctions should be granted to restrain ongoing and likely future contraventions in the public interest.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Injunctions (civil Penalty Contraventions) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing (with Non Participation by Respondents Except for Adjournment Application)
Outcome
Application allowed. Injunctions granted. Respondents ordered to pay the applicant's costs.
Legal Topics
['injunctions' 'veterinary Chemical Product Regulation' 'civil Penalty Provisions' 'statutory Interpretation' 'jurisdiction of the Federal Court' 'evidentiary Certificates' 'recall Notices' 'advertising and Supply of Unregistered Products']
['administrative Law' 'regulatory Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['injunctions' 'veterinary Chemical Product Regulation' 'civil Penalty Provisions' 'statutory Interpretation' 'jurisdiction of the Federal Court' 'evidentiary Certificates' 'recall Notices' 'advertising and Supply of Unregistered Products']

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

Application for Injunctions (civil Penalty Contraventions) / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing (with Non Participation by Respondents Except for Adjournment Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents supplied and advertised unregistered veterinary chemical products contrary to the AgVet Code' 'Whether the respondents failed to comply with recall notices issued under the AgVet Code' 'Whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to grant injunctions sought by the applicant' 'Whether evidential certificates under s 149 of the AgVet Code established the required facts' 'Whether hearsay evidence could be admitted under s 190 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)' 'Whether injunctions should be granted in the terms sought']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the respondents marketed and supplied (and proposed to continue to market and supply) unregistered veterinary chemical products, breached recall notices, and published notices in contravention of the AgVet Code. The evidential certificate and other uncontested evidence established the products were unregistered and not exempted, and the applicant was not required to disprove exceptions. The APVMA, as a Commonwealth agency, conferred jurisdiction on the Court. Injunctions should be granted to restrain ongoing and likely future contraventions in the public interest.

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Injunctions granted. Respondents ordered to pay the applicant's costs.

Orders

  • ['Respondents restrained from supplying or causing or permitting to be supplied unregistered veterinary chemical products contrary to s 78 of the AgVet Code (including Identified Products) unless registered or otherwise authorised.' 'Respondents restrained from publishing or causing to be published (including...