This was an application by the plaintiff for an extension of time to file a further amended statement of claim.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant companies had conspired to promote the benefits and pleasures of smoking and to deny, dispute or minimize the risks associated with smoking, for the purpose of inducing consumers to smoke cigarettes. The plaintiff alleged that this conduct constituted misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s52 of the Trade Practices Act. She further alleged that as a consequence of the defendants' conduct she had commenced, continued, recommenced and/or not ceased to smoke cigarettes and had therefore contracted emphysema.
The plaintiff had previously served several different versions of her statements of claim, portions of which had been struck out. At the previous hearing, Bell J had granted her 4 weeks leave to file a further amended statement of claim (see: Cauvin v. Philip Morris Limited and Ors [2005] NSWSC 640).
At the initial hearing of this application, counsel for the plaintiff conceded that the proposed pleading remained flawed and sought leave to file still another version. In relation to the further amended statement of claim, Bell J was of the view that it remained deficient, because the plaintiff had not pleaded how the defendants' alleged conduct had impacted on her personally. Nonetheless, Bell J granted leave for the amended pleading to be filed, on the basis that the deficiencies could be addressed by way of particulars.
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 an application by the plaintiff for an extension of time to file a further amended statement of claim.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant companies had conspired to promote the benefits and pleasures of smoking and to deny, dispute or minimize the risks associated with smoking, for the purpose of inducing consumers to smoke cigarettes. The plaintiff alleged that this conduct constituted misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s52 of the Trade Practices Act. She further alleged that as a consequence of the defendants' conduct she had commenced, continued, recommenced and/or not ceased to smoke cigarettes and had therefore contracted emphysema.
The plaintiff had previously served several different versions of her statements of claim, portions of which had been struck out. At the previous hearing, Bell J had granted her 4 weeks leave to file a further amended statement of claim (see: Cauvin v. Philip Morris Limited and Ors [2005] NSWSC 640).
At the initial hearing of this application, counsel for the plaintiff conceded that the proposed pleading remained flawed and sought leave to file still another version. In relation to the further amended statement of claim, Bell J was of the view that it remained deficient, because the plaintiff had not pleaded how the defendants' alleged conduct had impacted on her personally. Nonetheless, Bell J granted leave for the amended pleading to be filed, on the basis that the deficiencies could be addressed by way of particulars.