AFT Pharmaceuticals (AU) Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd

AFT Pharmaceuticals (AU) Pty Ltd sought a declaration that there is an adequate scientific foundation for certain statements in its advertisement for the analgesic drug Maxigesic. Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd, the cross-claimant, argued that the new advertising materials contravened the Australian Consumer Law as they conveyed a restrained representation and lacked an adequate scientific foundation. The case involved the interpretation of the Australian Consumer Law and the determination of whether the new advertising materials contravened the law.

The primary legal issue was whether there was an adequate scientific foundation for the claims made in the new advertisement, and whether the new advertising materials conveyed the restrained representation. This required an analysis of the scientific evidence provided by both parties and the interpretation of the relevant legal standards.

The Court found that the new advertisement and training aid did not convey a representation that Maxigesic provided faster onset and more meaningful pain relief than paracetamol and ibuprofen alone. The Court also found that the new advertising materials contravened the Australian Consumer Law as they conveyed the restrained representation and lacked an adequate scientific foundation. The Court considered the evidence provided by both parties and concluded that the new advertising materials did not have an adequate scientific foundation.

The Court refused the declaration sought by AFT Pharmaceuticals (AU) Pty Ltd and found that the new advertising materials contravened the Australian Consumer Law. The Court ordered that on or before 26 May 2020, the parties file and serve submissions in support of any application for non-publication of information contained in the reasons for judgment. Additionally, the parties were required to file and serve short minutes of orders to give effect to these reasons on or before 4 June 2020.