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. 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).