AFT Pharmaceuticals (AU) Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 672

AFT Pharmaceuticals (AU) Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 672

The scientific evidence, including the Daniels 2018 study, does not provide an adequate foundation for the unqualified representations in AFT's advertising materials; these representations are misleading or deceptive and contravene ss 18, 29(1)(g), and 33 of the Australian Consumer Law. The claims in the advertisements are not sufficiently limited to contexts for which scientific evidence exists, and thus breach previous court orders and consumer law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application refused; contraventions found in cross-claim
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'comparative Advertising' 'issue Estoppel' 'res Judicata']
['consumer Law' 'commercial Law'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'comparative Advertising' 'issue Estoppel' 'res Judicata']

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 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there is adequate scientific foundation for representations in advertising materials for Maxigesic' 'Whether advertising materials contravene sections 18, 29, and 33 of the Australian Consumer Law' 'Whether proceedings are barred by res judicata or issue estoppel' 'Whether new advertisements convey restrained representations previously subject to permanent injunction']

Ratio Decidendi

The scientific evidence, including the Daniels 2018 study, does not provide an adequate foundation for the unqualified representations in AFT's advertising materials; these representations are misleading or deceptive and contravene ss 18, 29(1)(g), and 33 of the Australian Consumer Law. The claims in the advertisements are not sufficiently limited to contexts for which scientific evidence exists, and thus breach previous court orders and consumer law.

Court Disposition

Application refused; contraventions found in cross-claim

Orders

  • ['On or before 26 May 2020, parties to file and serve submissions in support of any application for non-publication of information contained in the reasons for judgment.' 'On or before 4 June 2020, parties to file and serve short minutes of orders to give effect to these reasons.']