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.
Mr Clemens (formerly, Mr Lindsay) was declared a vexatious litigant in July 1998. As a result he was prohibited from commencing proceedings in any Victorian Court or Tribunal without leave. Mr Clemens, who represented himself, had brought several claims in different jurisdictions against a number of different defendants, all unsuccessful (see e.g: Lindsey v Philip Morris Limited [2004] FCAFC 40).
In this case Mr Clemens sought leave to bring a proceeding against Philip Morris Limited (PML) based on the common law offence of causing grievous bodily harm (or serious injury) to him by allegedly mixing toxic and carcinogenic chemicals into its tobacco products knowing that they were dangerous. In an earlier proceeding, Mr Clemens had sought damages from PML for negligence, namely its failure to warn him of the harmful nature of its cigarettes. In May 2007, a jury in the County Court found that there had been no negligence that was a cause of injury to Mr Clemens, and the judge accordingly entered judgment against him. The Court of Appeal refused to give Mr Clemens leave to appeal from that decision: see Clemens v Philip Morris Ltd [2008] VSCA 48.
In this case, Habersberger J rejected Mr Clemens's application to bring a further proceeding against PML on the basis that this cause of action could and should have been pleaded against PML in the earlier proceeding.