Limitations regarding the use of quotes
The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
In a previous decision, Morling J upheld the plaintiff's claim that a newspaper advertisement published by the Tobacco Institute of Australia (TIA) was misleading and deceptive in breach of the Trade Practices Act. Morling J had decided that the following statements in the advertisement were demonstrably false: "(T)here is little evidence and nothing which proves scientifically that cigarette smoking causes disease in non-smokers;" and "The London Times reported findings from the Institute of Cancer Research in Surrey, England ... that 'passive smoking' for life-long non-smokers causes no significant increase in the risk of lung cancer, bronchitis or heart disease ... The Institute's conclusions are based on a wealth of statistical detail from a study involving 12,000 people."
Morling J ordered the TIA to pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis.
The TIA appealed the decision to the Full Court. Pending the hearing of that appeal, the plaintiff sought an order that the TIA pay its costs (i.e. a departure from the ordinary rule that there be a stay of the costs order pending the hearing of the appeal). The plaintiff applied for this order because it said that otherwise it would not have sufficient funds to pay its lawyers for the appeal.
Although Morling J expressed sympathy for the plaintiff's circumstances, he did not think it was appropriate to make the order sought.
For the later appeal decision, see: Re Tobacco Institute of Australia v Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc [1993] FCA 83 (10 March 1993). For the earlier decision, see Re Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc v the Tobacco Institute of Australia Limited [1991] FCA 17 (7 February 1991).