Lewin v Purity Soft Drinks Ltd. [2004] EWHC 3119 (Admin) (14 December 2004)

Lewin v Purity Soft Drinks Ltd. [2004] EWHC 3119 (Admin) (14 December 2004)

The justices were entitled to read the label as a whole, including the ingredients list, in determining whether the trade descriptions were false or misleading. There was no evidence that the word 'Burst' qualified the trade description to indicate the product was not pure juice, but the inclusion of the accurate ingredients list, required by law, meant the trade descriptions were not false or misleading to a reasonable consumer. The justices applied the correct legal test and their findings were upheld.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 3119 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Bryan Roy Lewin; Defendant: Purity Soft Drinks Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated (criminal) / High Court (queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court) Judgment on Appeal From Magistrates' Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; acquittal of the defendant upheld.
Legal Topics
Trade Descriptions, Labelling Requirements, Misleading Descriptions, Interpretation of Labels, Costs in Criminal Proceedings
Criminal Law Consumer Protection Food Law Trade Descriptions Labelling Requirements Misleading Descriptions Interpretation of Labels Costs in Criminal Proceedings

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bryan Roy Lewin

Claimant

Purity Soft Drinks Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated (criminal) / High Court (queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court) Judgment on Appeal From Magistrates' Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trade descriptions 'Blackcurrant Juice' and 'Cranberry Juice' were false or misleading under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968
  2. 2 Whether the label should be read as a whole, including the ingredients list, in determining if a trade description is false or misleading
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine of disclaimer applies to mandatory labelling

Ratio Decidendi

The justices were entitled to read the label as a whole, including the ingredients list, in determining whether the trade descriptions were false or misleading. There was no evidence that the word 'Burst' qualified the trade description to indicate the product was not pure juice, but the inclusion of the accurate ingredients list, required by law, meant the trade descriptions were not false or misleading to a reasonable consumer. The justices applied the correct legal test and their findings were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; acquittal of the defendant upheld.

Orders

  • Costs of the appeal to be paid out of central funds to the defendant.
  • No order for costs in respect of the judicial review proceedings.