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.
This was the hearing of the defendants' application for further and better particulars of the plaintiff's statement of claim. The plaintiff alleged that she had contracted lung disease as a result of smoking the defendants' cigarettes in circumstances where the defendants were aware or should have been aware of the health risks posed by smoking and failed to warn the plaintiff of those risks.
The defendants made several allegations about the insufficiency of aspects of the plaintiff's claims. Hedigan J agreed with the defendants in relation to some of their complaints, including that the plaintiff needed to plead the particular "lung disease" that she alleged that she had contracted as a result of smoking the defendants' cigarettes. However, Hedigan J rejected some of the defendants' arguments, including its complaint that the plaintiff had not sufficiently identified the scientific literature available in the relevant period of which the defendants should have been aware. Hedigan J observed that the defendants were probably much better informed than the plaintiff about the public debate surrounding the link between smoking and health risks.
This decision is one of 5 procedural decisions in these proceedings. The plaintiff ultimately discontinued the case. See also: Cremona v. Philip Morris & Ors [1996] VicSC 241; Cremona v. Philip Morris & Ors [1996] VicSC 563; Cremona v. Philip Morris & Ors [1997] VicSC 534; and Cremona v. Philip Morris & Ors [1997] VicSC 552.