Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Jones (No 5)

The case before the court was brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) against Jones, concerning allegations of misleading or deceptive conduct under sections 52 and 53(c) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). Jones had made representations on the internet suggesting that reducing or eliminating glucose from the diet, and taking laetrile, could treat or prevent cancer. The ACCC sought declarations and injunctive relief against these claims, arguing they were misleading and deceptive and lacked a reliable scientific or medical basis.

The court addressed several procedural and substantive issues. Firstly, it considered whether the trial judge should recuse himself due to past findings regarding Jones's credibility, which were not relevant to the current trial. The court found no basis for recusal. Secondly, the court declined to adjourn the trial, despite Jones's request, as the trial dates had been set well in advance and the matter involved significant public health implications. Thirdly, the court ruled that certain articles annexed to Jones's affidavit, which were not authored by him, should not be admitted as evidence due to the lack of opportunity for the ACCC to cross-examine the authors.

On the substantive issue of misleading or deceptive conduct, the court found that Jones's representations were indeed misleading or deceptive. The ACCC presented medical opinion evidence that the claims were unfounded, while Jones failed to provide compelling medical evidence or intuitive reasoning to support his assertions. The court concluded that the representations contravened sections 52 and 53(c) of the Trade Practices Act.

The court granted the ACCC's requests for declaratory and injunctive relief, prohibiting Jones from making certain claims about cancer treatments unless supported by written advice from qualified medical professionals. Jones was also required to take steps to prevent others from making similar representations on his behalf and to publish a notice on his websites highlighting the court's findings. The comprehensive relief aimed to protect consumers from misleading health claims and ensure compliance with the Trade Practices Act.