This was a representative action against 6 large tobacco companies on behalf of a group of smokers, all of whom had allegedly contracted a smoking-related disease. The applicants alleged that the tobacco companies had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and/or that they had committed common law negligence, by remaining silent about the health risks of smoking and inducing the applicants to smoke.
In a previous decision, the Full Court of the Federal Court struck out the applicants' claim and refused them leave to replead. The Full Court found that it was inappropriate for the case to proceed as a representative proceeding, among other things because it would be impossible to determine which aspects of which respondent's conduct influenced which group member and to what degree. However, the Full Court gave leave to each member of the group to file a statement of claim on an individual basis.
The applicants applied to the High Court of Australia for special leave to appeal. They said that it was not feasible to bring individual proceedings for both financial reasons and because many of the plaintiffs were terminally ill and would not survive long enough to see out a case.
In this decision, the High Court refused the applicants' appeal, finding that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Full Court's decision.
An individual or organization may seek civil damages against a tobacco company based on the claim that the use of tobacco products causes disease or death. Some of these cases will relate to general tobacco products, while others will relate to specific subcategories of tobacco products--for example, light or low products, menthol or other flavored products. Additionally, there may be cases relating to exposure to secondhand smoke.
Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.
This was a representative action against 6 large tobacco companies on behalf of a group of smokers, all of whom had allegedly contracted a smoking-related disease. The applicants alleged that the tobacco companies had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and/or that they had committed common law negligence, by remaining silent about the health risks of smoking and inducing the applicants to smoke.
In a previous decision, the Full Court of the Federal Court struck out the applicants' claim and refused them leave to replead. The Full Court found that it was inappropriate for the case to proceed as a representative proceeding, among other things because it would be impossible to determine which aspects of which respondent's conduct influenced which group member and to what degree. However, the Full Court gave leave to each member of the group to file a statement of claim on an individual basis.
The applicants applied to the High Court of Australia for special leave to appeal. They said that it was not feasible to bring individual proceedings for both financial reasons and because many of the plaintiffs were terminally ill and would not survive long enough to see out a case.
In this decision, the High Court refused the applicants' appeal, finding that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Full Court's decision.