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.
The plaintiff brought a claim against the defendants alleging that she had contracted lung disease by smoking their cigarettes. In an earlier order, a Master of the Court had ruled that the issue of whether the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred be heard as a preliminary issue. This was the hearing of the plaintiff's application to have that order set aside.
The plaintiff brought this application because it had become apparent that the hearing of the preliminary issue raised issues that would also be relevant in the substantive hearing of the plaintiff's claim, and moreover because the hearing of the preliminary issue had become complex and unmanageable. For example, a subpoena had been issued to the Department of Human Services which it said related to 55,000 cartons of documents.
Hedigan J agreed with the plaintiff that the hearing of the issue relating to whether the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred should be heard at the same time as the substantive trial, and therefore sat aside the Master's earlier order.
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 563; Cremona v. Philip Morris & Ors [1997] VicSC 123; Cremona v. Philip Morris & Ors [1997] VicSC 534; and Cremona v. Philip Morris & Ors [1997] VicSC 552.