Tobacco Control Coalition Inc v. Philip Morris (Australia) Ltd & Ors
This was a proceeding commenced by a tobacco control group against a number of the tobacco manufacturers alleging misleading or deceptive in contravention of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the various state Fair Trading Acts. In particular, the Tobacco Control Coalition Inc (TCCI) alleged that each of the companies knew that nicotine was addictive and that smoking caused disease and, despite that knowledge, promoted the sale of cigarettes, represented that certain brands were less hazardous than others, and lobbied governments against tobacco control measures (amongst other things).
In a previous decision, the Court had ordered that the TCCI pay security for costs (see: Tobacco Control Coalition Inc v. Philip Morris (Australia) Ltd & Ors [2000] FCA 1004 (27 July 2000). In this case, the Court considered an application by TCCI for an extension of time to pay the security for costs.
Wilcox J granted TCCI's application for an extension of time for a further 3 months to 15 December 2000, noting (among other things), that the litigation was brought in the public interest and raised issues of public importance.
Tobacco Control Coalition Inc v. Philip Morris (Australia) Ltd & Ors, [2000] FCA 1404.
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.
Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.
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.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
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.
"I do not know whether an extension of time will be useful, so far as the applicant is concerned. It may be that, when December comes, the applicant is no further advanced in obtaining security. It may also be that the amount that is obtained, although perhaps sufficient to meet the present order, would not be sufficient to cover future costs. The applicant will have to give thought to that matter. The respondents have already foreshadowed applications for further security, if the case goes ahead. The applicant will have to form its own judgment about those matters. However, I am prepared to give the applicant a chance to put its house in order. As I said in my earlier judgment, the case raises issues of public importance. It is clear the applicant is taking its action under a feeling of public obligation, rather than for private interest motives. I think it is appropriate to take those matters into account in deciding whether there should be a further chance to obtain the security."
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 a proceeding commenced by a tobacco control group against a number of the tobacco manufacturers alleging misleading or deceptive in contravention of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the various state Fair Trading Acts. In particular, the Tobacco Control Coalition Inc (TCCI) alleged that each of the companies knew that nicotine was addictive and that smoking caused disease and, despite that knowledge, promoted the sale of cigarettes, represented that certain brands were less hazardous than others, and lobbied governments against tobacco control measures (amongst other things).
In a previous decision, the Court had ordered that the TCCI pay security for costs (see: Tobacco Control Coalition Inc v. Philip Morris (Australia) Ltd & Ors [2000] FCA 1004 (27 July 2000). In this case, the Court considered an application by TCCI for an extension of time to pay the security for costs.
Wilcox J granted TCCI's application for an extension of time for a further 3 months to 15 December 2000, noting (among other things), that the litigation was brought in the public interest and raised issues of public importance.