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. 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 this case, the Court considered an application by the plaintiff to proceed without a solicitor. The Court granted the application but only for a short period, until the hearing of the defendants' application for security for costs. For that decision, see: Tobacco Control Coalition Inc v. Philip Morris (Australia) Ltd & Ors [2000] FCA 1004 (27 July 2000.
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.
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. 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 this case, the Court considered an application by the plaintiff to proceed without a solicitor. The Court granted the application but only for a short period, until the hearing of the defendants' application for security for costs. For that decision, see: Tobacco Control Coalition Inc v. Philip Morris (Australia) Ltd & Ors [2000] FCA 1004 (27 July 2000.