This was the hearing of various applications by the defendant companies to strike out portions of the plaintiff's statement of claim. (Note that the judge had already struck out paragraphs of the statement of claim in an earlier judgment: Cauvin v Philip Morris Limited & Ors [2003] NSWSC 631).
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants knew that smoking caused an increased likelihood of contracting smoking related disease and nonetheless promoted the benefits of smoking and denied or minimized the risks of smoking. The plaintiff alleged that this conduct was misleading or deceptive in contravention of the Trade Practices Act and the various state Fair Trading Acts. The plaintiff further alleged that as a result of the defendants' contravening conduct "a great number of persons, including the plaintiff and other persons" had started/continued/failed to quit smoking and had suffered loss and damage as a result.
The defendant companies argued that it was not permissible for the plaintiff to seek compensatory orders on behalf of persons who were not party to the proceedings. Bell J agreed, striking out those parts of the claim that related to "other persons". Bell J observed that, as her claim was pleaded, the plaintiff had potentially claimed relief on behalf of every member of the Australian population.
(See further: Cauvin v. Philip Morris Limited & Ors [2005] NSWSC 640 (26 August 2005)).
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.
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 the hearing of various applications by the defendant companies to strike out portions of the plaintiff's statement of claim. (Note that the judge had already struck out paragraphs of the statement of claim in an earlier judgment: Cauvin v Philip Morris Limited & Ors [2003] NSWSC 631).
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants knew that smoking caused an increased likelihood of contracting smoking related disease and nonetheless promoted the benefits of smoking and denied or minimized the risks of smoking. The plaintiff alleged that this conduct was misleading or deceptive in contravention of the Trade Practices Act and the various state Fair Trading Acts. The plaintiff further alleged that as a result of the defendants' contravening conduct "a great number of persons, including the plaintiff and other persons" had started/continued/failed to quit smoking and had suffered loss and damage as a result.
The defendant companies argued that it was not permissible for the plaintiff to seek compensatory orders on behalf of persons who were not party to the proceedings. Bell J agreed, striking out those parts of the claim that related to "other persons". Bell J observed that, as her claim was pleaded, the plaintiff had potentially claimed relief on behalf of every member of the Australian population.
(See further: Cauvin v. Philip Morris Limited & Ors [2005] NSWSC 640 (26 August 2005)).