Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Willesee Healthcare Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2011] FCA 752
•30 May 2011
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Willesee Healthcare Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 752
Citation: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Willesee Healthcare Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 752 Parties: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v WILLESEE HEALTHCARE PTY LTD ACN 124 025 574, SOPHIE LEE-ANNE GEORGONICAS, THEOLIZA PTY LTD ACN 108 727 000, THETA LINE PTY LTD ACN 007 249 612, MARIA TERESA COLOSIMO, NEWLIFE PUBLISHING AND MARKETING PTY LTD ACN 123 522 074, RENEW YOU CENTRE FOR WELLBEING & LONGEVITY PTY LTD ACN 123 027 074, BOJAN SCHIANETZ and DZUNG KIEU PRICE File number: VID 859 of 2010 Judge: DODDS-STREETON J Date of judgment: 30 May 2011 Catchwords: TRADE PRACTICES – misleading and deceptive conduct and false representations in relation to diagnosis, treatment and cure of allergies – undertakings and final orders by consent – expert evidence tendered supporting relief sought – power to grant declaratory relief by consent – principles applicable to imposition of pecuniary penalties – relief granted Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
Trade Practices Act 1975 (Cth), ss 52, 53(aa), 53(c), 55A, 76, 76E
Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Act(No. 2) 2010 (Cth) Schedule 7 item 6Cases cited: ACCC v AI Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1377 cited
ACCC v Allergy Pathway Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 960 cited
ACCC v Allergy Pathway Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 74 cited
ACCC v April International Marketing Services Australia Pty Ltd (No 5) [2010] FCA 17 cited
ACCC v CI & Co Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1511 cited
ACCC v Cosic Holdings Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1579 cited
ACCC v Global One Mobile Entertainment Ltd [2011] FCA 393 cited
ACCC v Gourmet Goody’s Family Restaurant Pty Ltd (t/as Steersons Steakhouse) [2010] FCA 1216 cited
ACCC v Leahy Petroleum (No 3) (2005) 215 ALR 301 cited
ACCC v Le Sands Restaurant & Ors [2011] FCA 105 cited
ACCC v Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 683 cited
ACCC v MSY Technology Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2011] FCA 382 not followed
ACCC v Telstra Corporation Ltd (2010) 188 FCR 238 cited
ACCC v Willesee Healthcare Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 301 cited
ACCC v Yellow Page Marketing BV (No 2) [2011] FCA 352 cited
BMI Ltd v Federated Clerks Union of Australia (1983) 76 FLR 141 distinguished
Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 cited
Hartnell v Sharp Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd (1975) 5 ALR 493 cited
J McPhee & Son (Australia) Pty Ltd & Ors v ACCC (2000) 172 ALR 532 cited
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 cited
Minister for Industry, Tourism & Resources v Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 72 cited
NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (1996) 71 FCR 285 cited
Russian Commercial and Industrial Bank v British Bank for Foreign Trade Ltd [1921] 2 AC 438 cited
Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd (1991) ATPR 41-076 cited
Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 1 WLR 991 citedDate of hearing: 30 May 2011 Date of publication of reasons: 4 July 2011 Date of last submissions: 30 May 2011 Place: Melbourne Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 73 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr P Solomon SC with Mr A Bell Solicitor for the Applicant: Corrs Chambers Westgarth Counsel for the Eighth and Ninth Respondents: Mr R Frigo Solicitor for the Eighth and Ninth Respondents: Provest Law
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 859 of 2010
BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION
ApplicantAND: WILLESEE HEALTHCARE PTY LTD ACN 124 025 574
First RespondentSOPHIE LEE-ANNE GEORGONICAS
Second RespondentTHEOLIZA PTY LTD ACN 108 727 000
Third RespondentTHETA LINE PTY LTD ACN 007 249 612
Fourth RespondentMARIA TERESA COLOSIMO
Fifth RespondentNEWLIFE PUBLISHING AND MARKETING PTY LTD ACN 123 522 074
Sixth RespondentRENEW YOU CENTRE FOR WELLBEING & LONGEVITY PTY LTD ACN 123 027 074
Seventh RespondentBOJAN SCHIANETZ
Eighth RespondentDZUNG KIEU PRICE
Ninth Respondent
JUDGE:
DODDS-STREETON J
DATE OF ORDER:
30 MAY 2011
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
For the purposes of this Order, the following definitions apply:
1.allergy or allergies refer to a physical hypersensitivity in an individual to certain substances which are normally harmless (such as pollen, foods and fruits) and which produce an allergic reaction in that individual and which may be initiated by:
(a)contact with the skin;
(b)inhalation;
(c)ingestion; or
(d)injection;
2.allergen refers to a substance which elicits an allergic reaction in an individual; and
3.allergic reaction is an immunological process of specific allergen recognition and response.
UPON THE SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH AND NINTH RESPONDENTS giving the undertakings in Annexure 1 to this Order:
THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
1Each of the Sixth Respondent (Newlife) and Seventh Respondent (Renew You), from on or about 12 April 2008 until on or about 8 October 2010 has, in trade or commerce:
(a)engaged in conduct that was misleading and deceptive or was likely to mislead and deceive, in contravention of section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (the Act);
(b)in connexion with the supply or possible supply of goods purporting to test for and treat allergies and in connexion with the promotion of the supply of such goods, falsely represented that the goods were of a particular quality, in contravention of section 53(a) of the Act;
(c)in connexion with the supply or possible supply of services purporting to test for and treat allergies and in connexion with the promotion of the supply of such services, falsely represented that the services were of a particular quality, in contravention of section 53(aa) of the Act;
(d)in connexion with the supply or possible supply of goods and services purporting to test for and treat allergies and in connexion with the promotion of the supply of such goods and services, represented that the goods and services had performance characteristics, uses or benefits they did not have, in contravention of section 53(c) of the Act;
(e)engaged in conduct that was liable to mislead the public as to the nature or characteristics of goods purporting to test for and treat allergies or the suitability for their purpose of such goods, in contravention of section 55 of the Act; and
(f)engaged in conduct that was liable to mislead the public as to the nature or characteristics of services purporting to test for and treat allergies or the suitability for their purpose of such services, in contravention of section 55A of the Act,
by publishing or causing to be published,
(g)on the internet websites:
(i)
(v)
(xi) and
(xii) Newlife and Renew You Websites)
(h) on the video recordings known as:
(i)“Child Allergy Home Treatment”;
(ii)“1st Allergy Help Online Training”, “1st Allergy Help Intro”, or “End of Allergies Online Training”;
(iii)“1st Allergy Help”;
(iv)“Free Allergy Secret Revealed”;
(v)“Is There a Cure for a Peanut Allergy”; and
(vi)“How to Reverse Your Allergies” or “How to Reverse your Child Allergies”;
(i) in the brochures known as:
(i) “Heal Your Child’s Allergies At Home – Easily and Naturally!”;
(ii) “The Special Allergy Report”;
(iii) “Welcome to the Renew You Journey”; and
(iv)“Naturally Overcome the Peanut Allergy Epidemie [sic]: Special Report”;
(j) in the printed book known as “Your Allergy Free Child”;
(k) in the electronic book known as “Your Allergy Free Child”;
(l) on the video DVDs known as:
(i) “What you have to know to win the allergy war”; and
(ii)“The Art of Reliable Muscle Testing to Improve Your Health and Life”;
(m) on the audio CD known as “Overcoming your allergies”;
(n) in printed advertisements published in:
(i) Issue 51 of Jigsaw magazine;
(ii) the April 12-13, 2008 edition of Paradise magazine; and
(iii) the August/September 2009 edition of Living Now magazine;
the statements:
(o)referred to in Part 1 of Schedule A to this Order and thereby representing that Newlife and Renew You could test for and identify a substance to which a person was reacting and which was therefore an allergen for that person and/or a substance to which that person is allergic, when neither Newlife nor Renew You could test for and identify an allergen for a person nor a substance to which that person is allergic;
(p)referred to in Part 2 of Schedule A and thereby representing that Newlife and Renew You could:
(i)cure or eliminate all or virtually all allergies, or allergic reactions, when neither Newlife nor Renew You could cure or eliminate all or virtually all allergies, or allergic reactions; and
(ii)successfully treat a person’s allergies or allergic reactions, when neither Newlife nor Renew You could successfully treat a person’s allergies or allergic reactions;
(q)referred to in Part 3 of Schedule A and thereby representing that after treatment from Newlife or Renew You it would then be safe to have, and there would no longer be any risk or would be a reduced risk in the person having, contact with the substance or allergen to which that person had previously had an adverse reaction, when none of the treatments offered by Newlife or Renew You could achieve the result of reducing the risk to a person arising from any contact with a substance or allergen to which the person had previously had an adverse reaction, but rather any previous risk continued to exist;
(r)referred to in Part 4 of Schedule A and thereby representing that Newlife and Renew You could teach or instruct parents or carers of children in techniques which could be used by them to test for and identify a substance to which a child was reacting and which was therefore an allergen for that child and/or a substance to which that child was allergic, when the techniques taught or instructed by Newlife and Renew You could not test for or identify an allergen for a child nor a substance to which that child was allergic;
(s)referred to in Part 5 of Schedule A and thereby representing that Newlife and Renew You could:
(i)teach or instruct parents or carers of children in techniques which could be used by them to cure or eliminate all or virtually all allergies, or allergic reactions, in children, when the techniques taught or instructed by Newlife and Renew You could not cure or eliminate all or virtually all allergies, or any allergic reactions; and
(ii)teach or instruct parents or carers of children in techniques which could be used by them to successfully treat a child’s allergies or allergic reactions, when the techniques taught or instructed by Newlife and Renew You could not successfully treat a child’s allergies or allergic reactions; and
(t)referred to in Part 6 of Schedule A and thereby representing that following the application of the techniques taught or instructed by Newlife and Renew You on a child by parents or carers of children, it would then be safe for the child to have, and there would no longer be any risk or would be a reduced risk in a child having, contact with the substance or allergen to which the child had previously had an adverse reaction, when none of the techniques taught or instructed by Newlife or Renew You could achieve the result of reducing the risk to a child arising from any contact with a substance or allergen to which the child had previously had an adverse reaction, but rather any previous risk continued to exist.
2The Eighth Respondent (Schianetz), from on or about 12 March 2009 until on or about 8 October 2010 has (by the operation of section 6(3) of the Act), in trade or commerce:
(a)engaged in conduct that was misleading and deceptive or was likely to mislead and deceive, in contravention of section 52 of the Act;
(b)in connexion with the supply or possible supply of services purporting to test for and treat allergies and in connexion with the promotion of the supply of such services, falsely represented that the services were of a particular quality, in contravention of section 53(aa) of the Act;
(c)in connexion with the supply or possible supply of services purporting to test for and treat allergies and in connexion with the promotion of the supply of such services, represented that the services had performance characteristics, uses or benefits they did not have, in contravention of section 53(c) of the Act; and
(d)engaged in conduct that was liable to mislead the public as to the nature or characteristics of services purporting to test for and treat allergies or the suitability for their purpose of such services, in contravention of section 55A of the Act,
by publishing or causing to be published by the use of telephonic and postal services,
(e) on the websites:
(i) and
(ii) the video recordings known as:
(i)“1st Allergy Help Online Training”, “1st Allergy Help Intro”, or “End of Allergies Online Training”;
(ii)“1st Allergy Help”;
(iii)“Free Allergy Secret Revealed”; and
(iv)“Is There a Cure for a Peanut Allergy”;
(g) in the brochures known as:
(i) “The Special Allergy Report”;
(ii) “Welcome to the Renew You Journey”; and
(iii) Naturally Overcome the Peanut Allergy Epidemie [sic]: Special Report”; and
(h) in an article published in Issue No. 51 of Jigsaw Magazine;
the statements:
(i)referred to in Part 1 of Schedule B to this Order and thereby representing that Schianetz, Newlife and Renew You could test for and identify a substance to which a person was reacting and which was therefore an allergen for that person and/or a substance to which that person is allergic, when none of Schianetz, Newlife or Renew You could test for and identify an allergen for a person nor a substance to which that person is allergic;
(j)referred to in Part 2 of Schedule B and thereby representing that Schianetz, Newlife and Renew You could:
(i)cure or eliminate all or virtually all allergies, or allergic reactions, when none of Schianetz, Newlife or Renew You could cure or eliminate all or virtually all allergies, or allergic reactions; and
(ii)successfully treat a person’s allergies or allergic reactions, when none of Schianetz, Newlife or Renew You could successfully treat a person’s allergies or allergic reactions;
(k)referred to in Part 3 of Schedule B and thereby representing that after treatment from Schianetz, Newlife or Renew You it would then be safe to have, and there would no longer be any risk or would be a reduced risk in the person having, contact with the substance or allergen to which that person had previously had an adverse reaction, when none of the treatments offered by Schianetz, Newlife or Renew You could achieve the result of reducing the risk to a person arising from any contact with a substance or allergen to which the person had previously had an adverse reaction, but rather any previous risk continued to exist;
(l)referred to in Part 4 of Schedule B and thereby representing that Schianetz, Newlife and Renew You could teach or instruct parents or carers of children in techniques which could be used by them to test for and identify a substance to which a child was reacting and which was therefore an allergen for that child and/or a substance to which that child was allergic, when none of the techniques taught or instructed by Schianetz, Newlife or Renew You could test for or identify an allergen for a child nor a substance to which that child was allergic;
(m)referred to in Part 5 of Schedule B and thereby representing that Schianetz, Newlife and Renew You could:
(i)teach or instruct parents or carers of children in techniques which could be used by them to cure or eliminate all or virtually all allergies, or allergic reactions, in children, when none of the techniques taught or instructed by Schianetz, Newlife or Renew You could cure or eliminate all or virtually all allergies, or allergic reactions; and
(ii)teach or instruct parents or carers of children in techniques which could be used by them to successfully treat a child’s allergies or allergic reactions, when none of the techniques taught or instructed by Schianetz, Newlife or Renew You could successfully treat a child’s allergies or allergic reactions; and
(n)referred to in Part 6 of Schedule B and thereby representing that following the application of the techniques taught or instructed by Schianetz, Newlife and Renew You on a child by parents or carers of children, it would then be safe for the child to have, and there would no longer be any risk or would be a reduced risk in a child having, contact with the substance or allergen to which the child had previously had an adverse reaction, when none of the techniques taught or instructed by Schianetz, Newlife or Renew You could achieve the result of reducing the risk to a child arising from any contact with a substance or allergen to which the child had previously had an adverse reaction, but rather any previous risk continued to exist.
3The Ninth Respondent (Price), from on or about 12 September 2009 until on or about 8 October 2010 has (by the operation of section 6(3) of the Act), in trade or commerce:
(a)engaged in conduct that was misleading and deceptive or was likely to mislead and deceive, in contravention of section 52 of the Act;
(b)in connexion with the supply or possible supply of goods purporting to test for and treat allergies and in connexion with the promotion of the supply of such goods, falsely represented that the goods were of a particular quality, in contravention of section 53(a) of the Act;
(c)in connexion with the supply or possible supply of services purporting to test for and treat allergies and in connexion with the promotion of the supply of such services, falsely represented that the services were of a particular quality, in contravention of section 53(aa) of the Act;
(d)in connexion with the supply or possible supply of goods and services purporting to test for and treat allergies and in connexion with the promotion of the supply of such goods and services, represented that the goods and services had performance characteristics, uses or benefits they did not have, in contravention of section 53(c) of the Act;
(e)engaged in conduct that was liable to mislead the public as to the nature or characteristics of goods purporting to test for and treat allergies or the suitability for their purpose of such goods, in contravention of section 55 of the Act; and
(f)engaged in conduct that was liable to mislead the public as to the nature or characteristics of services purporting to test for and treat allergies or the suitability for their purpose of such services, in contravention of section 55A of the Act,
by publishing or causing to be published by the use of telephonic and postal services,
(g) on the websites:
(i) and
(ii) on the video recordings known as:
(i) “Child Allergy Home Treatment”; and
(ii) “How to Reverse Your Allergies” or “How to Reverse your Child Allergies”;
(i)on the video DVD known as “The Art of Reliable Muscle Testing to Improve Your Health and Life”;
(j)on the audio CD recording known as “Overcoming Your Allergies”;
(k)in the brochure known as “Heal Your Child’s Allergies At Home – Easily and Naturally!”;
(l)in the printed book known as “Your Allergy Free Child”; and
(m)in the electronic book known as “Your Allergy Free Child”;
the statements:
(n)referred to in Part 1 of Schedule C to this Order and thereby representing that Price, Newlife and Renew You could test for and identify a substance to which a person was reacting and which was therefore an allergen for that person and/or a substance to which that person is allergic, when none of Price, Newlife or Renew You could test for and identify an allergen for a person nor a substance to which that person is allergic;
(o)referred to in Part 2 of Schedule C and thereby representing that Price, Newlife and Renew You could:
(i)cure or eliminate all or virtually all allergies, or allergic reactions, when none of Price, Newlife or Renew You could cure or eliminate all or virtually all allergies, or allergic reactions; and
(ii)successfully treat a person’s allergies or allergic reactions, when none of Price, Newlife or Renew You could successfully treat a person’s allergies or allergic reactions;
(p)referred to in Part 3 of Schedule C and thereby representing that after treatment from Price, Newlife or Renew You it would then be safe to have, and there would no longer be any risk or would be a reduced risk in the person having, contact with the substance or allergen to which that person had previously had an adverse reaction, when none of the treatments offered by Price, Newlife or Renew You could achieve the result of reducing the risk to a person arising from any contact with a substance or allergen to which the person had previously had an adverse reaction, but rather any previous risk continued to exist.
(q)referred to in Part 4 of Schedule C and thereby representing that Price, Newlife and Renew You could teach or instruct parents or carers of children in techniques which could be used by them to test for and identify a substance to which a child was reacting and which was therefore an allergen for that child and/or a substance to which that child was allergic, when none of the techniques taught or instructed by Price, Newlife or Renew You could test for or identify an allergen for a child nor a substance to which that child was allergic;
(r)referred to in Part 5 of Schedule C and thereby representing that Price, Newlife and Renew You could:
(i)teach or instruct parents or carers of children in techniques which could be used by them to cure or eliminate all or virtually all allergies, or allergic reactions, in children, when none of the techniques taught or instructed by Price, Newlife or Renew You could cure or eliminate all or virtually all allergies, or allergic reactions; and
(ii)teach or instruct parents or carers of children in techniques which could be used by them to successfully treat a child’s allergies or allergic reactions, when none of the techniques taught or instructed by Price, Newlife or Renew You could successfully treat a child’s allergies or allergic reactions; and
(s)referred to in Part 6 of Schedule C and thereby representing that following the application of the techniques taught or instructed by Price, Newlife and Renew You on a child by parents or carers of children, it would then be safe for the child to have, and there would no longer be any risk or would be a reduced risk in a child having, contact with the substance or allergen to which the child had previously had an adverse reaction, when none of the techniques taught or instructed by Price, Newlife or Renew You could achieve the result of reducing the risk to a child arising from any contact with a substance or allergen to which the child had previously had an adverse reaction, but rather any previous risk continued to exist.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Newlife and Renew You Pecuniary Penalties4Newlife and Renew You pay to the Commonwealth of Australia a pecuniary penalty totalling $125,000.00 in respect of their conduct in contravention of sections 53(a), 53(aa), 53(c), 55 and 55A of the Act referred to in paragraph 1 insofar as the conduct concerns representations made on or after 15 April 2010.
Newlife and Renew You Corrective Advertising
5Newlife and Renew You jointly cause to be published, at their own expense, within 60 days of the date of this Order, a corrective advertisement in the form of Annexure 2 to this Order in each of:
(a) “Paradise”;
(b) “Jigsaw”; and
(c) “Living Now”
printed magazines, and further that Newlife and Renew You shall use their best endeavours to ensure that such advertisement shall be:
(d) of a size not less than one half of one page;
(e) in text which is in type not less than 10 point; and
(f) placed in the first half of the magazine.
6Newlife and Renew You jointly cause to be published, at their own expense, within 14 days of the date of this Order, a notice in the terms and form of Annexure 2 to this Order which notice is to be affixed on the front counter and displayed at the point of sale at each clinic operated by Newlife and Renew You, or either of them, for a continuous period of 60 days and in a manner such that the notice is not obscured.
7Newlife and Renew You jointly cause to be published, at their own expense, within 14 days of the date of this Order, a notice in the terms and form of Annexure 3 to this Order (Newlife and Renew You Website Notice) on each of the Newlife and Renew You websites as defined in paragraph (g) and, if the URL of any such website is replaced or changed, the Internet home page of the corresponding website, for a continuous period of 60 days and use their best endeavours to ensure that:
(a)the Newlife and Renew You Website Notice shall be viewable by clicking a ‘click-through’ icon located on each of the Newlife and Renew You Websites;
(b)the ‘click-through’ icon referred to in the previous sub-paragraph is located at the top of the homepage of each of the Newlife and Renew You Websites and any corresponding websites;
(c)the ‘click-through’ icon shall contain the words “False and Misleading Conduct by Newlife and Renew You – Corrective Notice Ordered by Federal Court of Australia” prominently in red text on a black background and the words “click here”;
(d)the Newlife and Renew You Website Notice shall occupy the entire webpage that is accessed via the “click-through” icon referred to above; and
(e)neither the homepage of any of the Newlife and Renew You Websites nor any of the webpages that are accessed via the “click-through” icon referred to above shall have in place any mechanism which would preclude search engines from:
(i) indexing the page; or
(ii) scanning the page for links to follow.
8Newlife and Renew You jointly cause to be published, at their own expense, within 30 days of the date of this Order, a videotaped version of Annexure 3 (which shall include the entire text of the Annexure 3 and no additional text, displayed legibly and read clearly on the video recording), on each of the following websites:
(a) (on the “RenewyouGroup” channel located at (on the “NewLife Marketing and Publishing” channel located at (on the “endallergies now” channel located at (on the “endallergiesnow” channel located at and
(e) (on the “endallergiesnow” channel located at the subject “False, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct by Newlife and Renew You” and no other descriptive information (other than as required by the website to publish the video), and in a manner which makes the video recording available to the public on each such website for a continuous period of no less than 60 days and includes the video recording on any indexing service offered at no cost by the website.
9Newlife and Renew You jointly cause to be published and distributed, at their own expense, within 21 days of the date of this Order, a letter in the terms and form of Annexure 4 to this Order to all persons to whom either or both have provided goods or services purporting to test for or treat allergies at the date of this Order or who were such persons during any period from 12 April 2008 until the date of this Order.
10Each of Newlife and Renew You file and serve on the ACCC within 70 days of the date of this Order an affidavit of its proper officer verifying that it has carried out its obligations under the Order under paragraphs 5 to 9 above, detailing what it has done, including:
(a)in respect of paragraph 5 above, providing a copy of the corrective advertisement as published in each of the magazines;
(b)in respect of paragraphs 6 to 8 above, detailing how the 60 day period ordered has to date been and will continue to be complied with; and
(c)in respect of paragraph 9 above, providing:
(i)a copy of one letter as distributed to a person; and
(ii)a list of the persons to whom the letter was sent and the address to which the letter was sent.
Newlife and Renew You Compliance Training
11Each of Newlife and Renew You:
(a)shall require each of their respective officers and practitioners, and each of their respective employees who associate with the public as part of their regular duties (including without limitation, to the extent they remain affiliated with Newlife or Renew You, Dzung Price, Bojan Schianetz and Valeria Astorga) to attend, not less than once annually for a period of 3 years from the date of this Order, practical training regarding Parts 2-1 and 3-1 of Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), such training to be paid for by Newlife and Renew You and conducted by a compliance or legal practitioner with suitable qualifications or experience in trade practices law; and
(b)shall provide to the ACCC within 14 days of the completion of such annual training an affidavit:
(i) verifying that such training has occurred; and
(ii)stating precisely the date the training occurred, the topics that were covered and the name of the person who provided the training.
Schianetz Pecuniary Penalty
12Schianetz pay to the Commonwealth of Australia a pecuniary penalty in the sum of $30,000.00 in respect of his conduct in contravention of sections 53(aa), 53(c) and 55A of the Act referred to in paragraph 2 insofar as the conduct concerns representations made on or after 15 April 2010.
Schianetz Corrective Advertising
13Schianetz cause to be published, at his own expense, within 30 days of the date of this Order, a videotaped version of Annexure 5 (which shall include the entire text of Annexure 5 and no additional text, displayed legibly and read clearly on the video recording), on (on the “BojanSchianetz” channel located at with the subject “False, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct by Bojan Schianetz” and no other descriptive information (other than as required by the website to publish the video), and in a manner which makes the video recording available to the public on each such website for a continuous period of no less than 60 days and includes the video recording on any indexing service offered at no cost by the website.
14Schianetz cause to be published and distributed, at his own expense, within 21 days of the date of this Order, a letter in the terms and form of Annexure 4 to this application to all persons to whom Schianetz has provided services purporting to test for or treat allergies at the date of this Order or who were such persons during any period from 12 March 2009 until the date of this Order, but excluding any person to whom a letter has been issued in accordance with paragraph 9.
15Schianetz file and serve on the ACCC within 70 days of the date of this Order an affidavit verifying that he has carried out his obligations under the Order under paragraphs 13 and 14 above, detailing what he has done, including:
(a)in respect of paragraph 13 above, detailing how the 60 day period ordered has to date been and will continue to be complied with; and
(b)in respect of paragraph 14 above, providing:
(i) a copy of one letter as distributed to a person; and
(ii)a list of the persons to whom the letter was sent and the address to which the letter was sent.
Schianetz Compliance Training
16Schianetz:
(a)shall attend not less than once annually for a period of 3 years from the date of this Order, practical training regarding Parts 2-1 and 3-1 of Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), such training to be paid for by Schianetz and conducted by a compliance or legal practitioner with suitable qualifications or experience in trade practices law (Schianetz may meet the requirements of this paragraph 16 during any annual period by attending during that period one of the training sessions referenced in paragraph (a)); and
(b)shall provide to the ACCC within 14 days of the completion of such annual training an affidavit:
(i)verifying that such training has occurred; and
(ii)stating precisely the date the training occurred, the topics that were covered and the name of the person who provided the training.
Price Pecuniary Penalty
17Price pay to the Commonwealth of Australia a pecuniary penalty in the amount of $30,000.00 in respect of her conduct in contravention of sections 53(a), 53(aa), 53(c), 55 and 55A of the Act referred to in paragraph 3 insofar as the conduct concerns representations made on or after 15 April 2010.
Price Corrective Advertising
18Price cause to be published, at her own expense, within 21 days of the date of this Order, a notice in the terms and form of Annexure 6 to this Order (the Price Website Notice) on the Eternity Crystal Beauty Website at and, if any such URL is replaced or changed, the Internet home page of the corresponding website, for a continuous period of 60 days and use her best endeavours to ensure that:
(a)the Price Website Notice shall be viewable by clicking a ‘click-through’ icon located on the Eternity Crystal Beauty Website;
(b)the ‘click-through’ icon referred to in the previous sub-paragraph is located at the top of the homepage of the Eternity Crystal Beauty Website and/or any corresponding websites;
(c)the ‘click-through’ icon shall contain the words “False and Misleading Conduct by Dr Dzung Price – Corrective Notice Ordered by Federal Court of Australia” prominently in red text on a black background and the words “click here”;
(d)the Price Website Notice shall occupy the entire webpage that is accessed via the “click-through” icon referred to above; and
(e)neither the homepage of the Eternity Crystal Beauty Website nor the webpage that is accessed via the “click-through” icon referred to above shall have in place any mechanism which would preclude search engines from:
(i) indexing the page; or
(ii) scanning the page for links to follow.
19Price cause to be published, at her own expense, within 30 days of the date of this Order, a videotaped version of Annexure 6 (which shall include the entire text of Annexure 6 and no additional text, displayed legibly and read clearly on the video recording), on the webpage referenced in paragraph (d) above, with the subject “False, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct by Dr Dzung Price” and no other descriptive information, and in a manner which makes the video recording available to the public on each such website for a continuous period of no less than 60 days.
20Price cause to be published and distributed, at her own expense, within 21 days of the date of this Order, a letter in the terms and form of Annexure 4 to this application to all persons to whom Price has provided goods or services purporting to test for or treat allergies at the date of this Order or who were such persons during any period from 14 October 2009 until the date of this Order, but excluding any person to whom a letter has been issued in accordance with paragraph 9.
21Price file and serve on the ACCC within 70 days of the date of this Order an affidavit verifying that she has carried out her obligations under the Order under paragraphs 18 to 20 above, detailing what she has done, including:
(a)in respect of paragraph 18 and 19 above, detailing how the 60 day period ordered has to date been and will continue to be complied with; and
(b)in respect of paragraph 20 above, providing:
(i) a copy of one letter as distributed to a person; and
(ii)a list of the persons to whom the letter was sent and the address to which the letter was sent.
Price Compliance Training
22Price:
(a)shall attend not less than once annually for a period of 3 years from the date of this Order, practical training regarding Parts 2-1 and 3-1 of Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), such training to be paid for by Price and conducted by a compliance or legal practitioner with suitable qualifications or experience in trade practices law (Price may meet the requirements of this paragraph 22 during any annual period by attending during that period one of the training sessions referenced in paragraph (a)); and
(b)shall provide to the ACCC within 14 days of the completion of such annual training an affidavit:
(i) verifying that such training has occurred; and
(ii)stating precisely the date the training occurred, the topics that were covered and the name of the person who provided the training.
Other Orders
23Newlife pay the ACCC’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding in the sum of $1,000.00 within 30 days of the date of this Order.
24Renew You pay the ACCC’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding in the sum of $1,000.00 within 30 days of the date of this Order.
25Schianetz pay the ACCC’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding in the sum of $1,000.00 within 30 days of the date of this Order.
26Price pay the ACCC’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding in the sum of $1,000.00 within 30 days of the date of this Order.
PENALTY NOTICE TO THE SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH AND NINTH RESPONDENTS
(Order 37 rule 2(3))IF YOU:
(A)REFUSE OR NEGLECT TO DO ANY ACT WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN THIS ORDER FOR THE DOING OF THE ACT; OR
(B)DISOBEY THE ORDER BY DOING AN ACT WHICH THE ORDER REQUIRES YOU TO ABSTAIN FROM DOING,
YOU WILL BE LIABLE TO IMPRISONMENT, SEQUESTRATION OF PROPERTY OR OTHER PUNISHMENT.
ANNEXURE 2
Information Notice
An important message from
Newlife Publishing and Marketing Pty Ltd and
Renew You Centre for Wellbeing and Longevity Pty Ltd
False, misleading and deceptive conduct by Newlife Publishing and Marketing Pty Ltd and Renew You Centre for Wellbeing and Longevity Pty Ltd
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) commenced proceedings against Newlife Publishing and Marketing Pty Ltd (Newlife) and Renew You Centre for Wellbeing and Longevity Pty Ltd (Renew You) in the Federal Court of Australia for contravention of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA) in relation to representations made by Newlife and Renew You. Renew You operates the Renew You Centre for Wellbeing and Longevity clinics located in Brisbane and the Gold Coast.
Newlife and Renew You made the representations in relation to their purported ability to diagnose and treat allergies. An allergy is a physical hypersensitivity which produces an allergic reaction through an immunological process.
The representations were made in written and videotaped statements published and adopted on various websites operated by Newlife and Renew You and also in printed and electronic brochures and booklets available from those websites, in videotaped statements on third-party websites such as and similar websites, on CDs and DVDs sold over the internet and distributed at clinics, in printed and electronic books, in electronic mail messages, and in magazine advertisements.
The ACCC, Newlife and Renew You have agreed to settle the proceedings. Newlife and Renew You have consented to declarations by the Court that Newlife and Renew You’s conduct contravened the TPA because they made false, misleading and deceptive representations that:
1. They could test for and identify allergies, when they could not.
2. They could successfully treat a person’s allergies or allergic reactions, or that they could cure or eliminate all or virtually all allergies or allergic reactions, when they could not.
3. Following treatment, it would then be safe, or less risky, for a person to have contact with the substance or allergen to which the person had previously had an adverse reaction, when it would not be safe or less risky.
4. They could teach or instruct parents or carers of children in techniques which could be used to test for and identify allergies, when they could not.
5. They could teach or instruct parents or carers of children in techniques which could be used to treat a child’s allergies or allergic reactions or to cure or eliminate all or virtually all allergies, or allergic reactions, in children, when they could not.
6. Following the application of certain techniques taught by them to parents or carers of children, it would then be safe, or less risky, for the child to have contact with the substance or allergen to which the child had previously had an adverse reaction, when it would not be safe or less risky.
As part of its orders, by consent of the parties, the Court accepted undertakings from Newlife and Renew You that they would not engage in similar conduct for a period of 3 years and required them to jointly pay pecuniary penalties in the amount of $125,000.00 together with the ACCC’s costs of the proceeding. The Court also required Newlife and Renew You to publish corrective notices including this notice and to provide trade practices compliance training for their employees.
ANNEXURE 3
An important message from
Newlife Publishing and Marketing Pty Ltd and Renew You Centre for Wellbeing and Longevity Pty LtdFalse, misleading and deceptive conduct by Newlife Publishing and Marketing Pty Ltd and Renew You Centre for Wellbeing and Longevity Pty Ltd
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) commenced proceedings against Newlife Publishing and Marketing Pty Ltd (Newlife) and Renew You Centre for Wellbeing and Longevity Pty Ltd (Renew You) in the Federal Court of Australia for contravention of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA) in relation to representations made by Newlife and Renew You. Renew You operates the Renew You Centre for Wellbeing and Longevity clinics located in Brisbane and the Gold Coast.
Newlife and Renew You made the representations in relation to their purported ability to diagnose and treat allergies. An allergy is a physical hypersensitivity which produces an allergic reaction through an immunological process.
The representations were made in written and videotaped statements published and adopted on various websites operated by Newlife and Renew You and also in printed and electronic brochures and booklets available from the above websites, in videotaped recordings on third-party websites such as and similar websites, on CDs and DVDs sold over the internet and distributed at clinics, in printed and electronic books, in electronic mail messages, and in magazine advertisements.
The ACCC, Newlife and Renew You have agreed to settle the proceedings. Newlife and Renew You have consented to declarations by the Court that Newlife and Renew You’s conduct contravened the TPA because they made false, misleading and deceptive representations that:
1. They could test for and identify allergies, when they could not.
2. They could successfully treat a person’s allergies or allergic reactions, or that they could cure or eliminate all or virtually all allergies or allergic reactions, when they could not.
3. Following treatment, it would then be safe, or less risky, for a person to have contact with the substance or allergen to which the person had previously had an adverse reaction, when it would not be safe or less risky.
4. They could teach or instruct parents or carers of children in techniques which could be used to test for and identify allergies, when they could not.
5. They could teach or instruct parents or carers of children in techniques which could be used to treat a child’s allergies or allergic reactions or to cure or eliminate all or virtually all allergies, or allergic reactions, in children, when they could not.
6. Following the application of certain techniques taught by them to parents or carers of children, it would then be safe, or less risky, for the child to have contact with the substance or allergen to which the child had previously had an adverse reaction, when it would not be safe or less risky.
As part of its orders, by consent of the parties, the Court:
·accepted undertakings from Newlife and Renew You that they would not engage in similar conduct for a period of 3 years;
·required Newlife and Renew You to jointly pay pecuniary penalties in the amount of $125,000.00 together with the ACCC’s costs of the proceeding; and
·required Newlife and Renew You to publish corrective notices including this notice and to provide trade practices compliance training for their employees.
ANNEXURE 4
(Newlife and Renew You logo and letterhead)
(Date)
(To Newlife, Renew You, Schianetz and/or Price client)
Dear Sir / Madam,False, misleading and deceptive conduct by Newlife, Renew You, Dr Dzung Price and Bojan Schianetz
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission commenced proceedings against Newlife Publishing and Marketing Pty Ltd (Newlife), Renew You Centre for Wellbeing and Longevity Pty Ltd (Renew You), Bojan Schianetz (Schianetz) and Dr Dzung Price (Price) in the Federal Court of Australia for contravention of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA) in relation to representations made by them. Renew You operates the Renew You Centre for Wellbeing and Longevity clinics located in Brisbane and the Gold Coast.
Newlife, Renew You, Schianetz and Price made the representations in the course of carrying on and promoting the purported allergy diagnosis and treatment business of Newlife and Renew You. An allergy is a physical hypersensitivity which produces an allergic reaction through an immunological process.
The representations were made in written and videotaped statements published and adopted on various websites operated by them and also in printed and electronic brochures and booklets available from those websites, in videotaped statements on third-party websites such as and similar websites, on CDs and DVDs sold over the internet and distributed at clinics, in printed and electronic books, in electronic mail messages, and in magazine advertisements.
The Court has declared that the conduct of Newlife, Renew You, Schianetz and Price contravened the TPA because they made false, misleading and deceptive representations that:1. They could test for and identify a substance to which a person was allergic, when they could not.
2. They could successfully treat a person’s allergies or allergic reactions, or that they could cure or eliminate all or virtually all allergies or allergic reactions, when they could not.
3. Following treatment, it would then be safe, or less risky, for a person to have contact with the substance or allergen to which the person had previously had an adverse reaction, when it would not be safe or less risky.
4. They could teach or instruct parents or carers of children in techniques which could be used to test for and identify a substance to which a child was allergic, when they could not.
5. They could teach or instruct parents or carers of children in techniques which could be used to treat a child’s allergies or allergic reactions or to cure or eliminate all or virtually all allergies, or allergic reactions, in children, when they could not.
6. Following the application of certain techniques taught by them to parents or carers of children, it would then be safe, or less risky, for the child to have contact with the substance or allergen to which the child had previously had an adverse reaction, when it would not be safe or less risky.
As part of its orders, by consent of the parties, the Court accepted undertakings from Newlife, Renew You, Schianetz and Price that they would not engage in similar conduct for a period of 3 years, and required them to publish corrective notices, send this corrective letter, and pay the ACCC’s costs of the proceeding. The Court also ordered Newlife and Renew You to jointly pay pecuniary penalties in the amount of $125,000.00, and Schianetz and Price to each pay pecuniary penalties in the amount of $30,000. The Court also ordered Newlife and Renew You to provide trade practices compliance training for their employees, and ordered Schianetz and Price to attend such training.
Yours faithfully,
(Signature of Newlife’s Proper Officer) (Signature of Renew You’s Proper Officer)ANNEXURE 5
An important message from
Bojan SchianetzFalse, misleading and deceptive conduct by Bojan Schianetz
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) commenced proceedings against Bojan Schianetz (Schianetz) in the Federal Court of Australia for contravening the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA) by engaging in false, misleading and deceptive conduct.
Schianetz made representations in relation to his purported ability, or the purported ability of Newlife Publishing and Marketing Pty Ltd (Newlife) and Renew You Centre for Wellbeing and Longevity Pty Ltd (Renew You), to diagnose and treat allergies. An allergy is a physical hypersensitivity which produces an allergic reaction through an immunological process.
The representations were made in written and videotaped statements published and adopted on various websites operated by Newlife and Renew You and also in electronic brochures and booklets available from those websites, in videotaped statements on third-party websites such as in electronic mail messages, and in an article published in Jigsaw magazine.
The ACCC and Schianetz have agreed to settle the proceedings. Schianetz has consented to declarations by the Court that his conduct contravened the TPA because he made false, misleading and deceptive representations that:
1. Schianetz, Newlife or Renew You could test for and identify a substance to which a person was allergic, when they could not.
2. Schianetz, Newlife or Renew You could successfully treat a person’s allergies or allergic reactions, or that they could cure or eliminate all or virtually all allergies or allergic reactions, when they could not.
3. Following treatment from Schianetz, Newlife or Renew You, it would then be safe, or less risky, for a person to have contact with the substance or allergen to which the person had previously had an adverse reaction, when it would not be safe or less risky.
4. Schianetz, Newlife or Renew You could teach or instruct parents or carers of children in techniques which could be used to test for and identify a substance to which a child was allergic, when they could not.
5. Schianetz, Newlife or Renew You could teach or instruct parents or carers of children in techniques which could be used to treat a child’s allergies or allergic reactions or to cure or eliminate all or virtually all allergies, or allergic reactions, in children, when they could not.
6. Following the application of certain techniques taught by Schianetz, Newlife or Renew You to parents or carers of children, it would then be safe, or less risky, for the child to have contact with the substance or allergen to which the child had previously had an adverse reaction, when it would not be safe or less risky.
As part of its orders, by consent of the parties the Court:
·accepted an undertaking from Schianetz that he would not engage in similar conduct for a period of 3 years;
·required Schianetz to pay pecuniary penalties in the amount of $30,000.00, together with the ACCC’s costs of the proceeding; and
·required Schianetz to publish corrective notices including this notice and to attend trade practices compliance training.
ANNEXURE 6
An important message from
Dr Dzung PriceFalse, misleading and deceptive conduct by Dr Dzung Price
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) commenced proceedings against Dr Dzung Price (Price) in the Federal Court of Australia for contravening the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA) by engaging in false, misleading and deceptive conduct.
Price made representations in relation to her purported ability, or the purported ability of Newlife Publishing and Marketing Pty Ltd (Newlife) and Renew You Centre for Wellbeing and Longevity Pty Ltd (Renew You), to diagnose and treat allergies. An allergy is a physical hypersensitivity which produces an allergic reaction through an immunological process.
The representations were made in written and videotaped statements published and adopted on various websites operated by Price, Newlife and Renew You, and also in printed and electronic brochures and booklets available from those websites, in videotaped statements on third-party websites such as and on CDs and DVDs and in printed and electronic books available over the internet.
The ACCC and Price have agreed to settle the proceedings. Price has consented to declarations by the Court that her conduct contravened the TPA because she made false, misleading and deceptive representations that:
1. Price, Newlife or Renew You could test for and identify a substance to which a person was allergic, when they could not.
2. Price, Newlife or Renew You could successfully treat a person’s allergies or allergic reactions, or that they could cure or eliminate all or virtually all allergies or allergic reactions, when they could not.
3. Following treatment from Price, Newlife or Renew You, it would then be safe, or less risky, for a person to have contact with the substance or allergen to which the person had previously had an adverse reaction, when it would not be safe or less risky.
4. Price, Newlife or Renew You could teach or instruct parents or carers of children in techniques which could be used to test for and identify a substance to which a child was allergic, when they could not.
5. Price, Newlife or Renew You could teach or instruct parents or carers of children in techniques which could be used to treat a child’s allergies or allergic reactions or to cure or eliminate all or virtually all allergies, or allergic reactions, in children, when they could not.
6. Following the application of certain techniques taught by Price, Newlife or Renew You to parents or carers of children, it would then be safe, or less risky, for the child to have contact with the substance or allergen to which the child had previously had an adverse reaction, when it would not be safe or less risky.
As part of its orders, by consent of the parties the Court:
·accepted an undertaking from Price that she would not engage in similar conduct for a period of 3 years;
·required Price to pay pecuniary penalties in the amount of $30,000.00, together with the ACCC’s costs of the proceeding; and
·required Price to publish corrective notices including this notice and to attend trade practices compliance training.
SCHEDULE A
STATEMENTS BY NEW LIFE / RENEW YOUPART 1: ACCURATE ALLERGY TEST REPRESENTATION
Webpages
Reference Webpage Reference Webpage RYJ Jun 10 Renew You Journey 29/6/10 BAF Oct 09 BioFast Allergy Free 27/10/09 ALH Jan 10 Allergy Help 20/1/10 FFA Oct 09 Free From Allergies 27/10/09 ALH Jun 10 Allergy Help 18/6/10 YAC Oct 09 Your Allergy Free Child 21/10/09
S/ment No Statement of Concern Source 1.
Advanced Allergy Testing
Renew You offers a different range of testing options depending on the patients needs and preferences. Pathlab offers the ALCAT 150 food sensitivity test. Analytical Reference Laboratory offers testing for 93 food sensitivities based on IgE measurements. Many clients choose the Advanced Allergy & Sensitivity Testing based on the German Bruce Copen Laboratory Resonance System from Germany. This test addresses the most common 250 allergy groups or single allergies to which Australians are currently exposed in our lives every day.BAF OCT 09
2.
How do I get my allergies tested?
Renew You offers a different range of testing options depending on the patients needs and preferences. Pathlab offer the ALCAT 150 food sensitivity test. Analytical Reference Laboratory offers testing for 93 food sensitivities based on lgE measurements. Many clients choose the Advanced Allergy & Sensitivity Testing based on the German Bruce Copen Laboratory Resonance System from the UK. This test addresses the most common 250 allergy groups or single allergies to which Australians are currently exposed in our lives every day. Testing can be done with a DNA sample of hair and blood. Even small babies, children, pets and farm animals can be tested and their immune systems improved.BAF OCT 09
ALH JUN 103.
Allergy Assessment
We offer the possibility of different allergy assessment options depending on the patient’s needs and preferences. One option is Pathlab, which offers the ALCAT sensitivity test for 150 foods. Another option is the Analytical Reference Laboratory Test for 93 foods. This test is based on IgE measurements. Most of our clients choose the Allergy & Sensitivity Assessment option which is based on the German Bruce Copen Laboratory Resonance System. With this option, we can address 250 allergy groups or single allergies, including tools, toxins and animals.RYJ JUN 10
4.
Allergy Help
...
BioFastTM Body Renewal Program
Level 1
Initial assessment of your reactions to substances and foods with the BioFASTTM Advanced Substance Assessment...RYJ JUN 10
5.
“At my clinics, we’ve come up with a program that includes painless, non-invasive testing methods, lifestyle changes, emotional clearing, and natural healing modalities to successfully eliminate allergy in hundreds of our patients, including infants,” ... said Schianetz.
FFA OCT 09
6.
What the BioFast™ Program Will Do For You
Test you for allergies to hundreds of substances and combinations – fast, painless, and accurateFFA OCT 09
7.
Painless, Incredibly Fast, and Almost 100% Accurate Testing
...
BioFAST identifies most allergies with just one test.FFA OCT 09
8.
What is the BioFast™ Process?
Using multiple resonances testing technology, your hair sample is later tested for 250 substances and combinations to identify what is affecting you. You can be allergic to just about anything, from foods to household chemicals, even sunlight or water.FFA OCT 09
9.
Diagnostic Resonance System Provides almost 100% Accurate, Fast Allergy Testing
...
The device ‘tunes onto’ the energy patterns within the witness (hair or blood sample), and assesses that frequency for energy disturbances. Because every substance has its own energy pattern, the device is able to identify just what substances are affecting you the most.FFA OCT 09
10.
How do I get my allergies tested?
… For basic allergy tests we use muscle testing which shows very accurate results. Bio Tensor Testing, which is based on the same principles as muscle testing, is the most accurate testing method available. The disadvantage is that it can be time consuming to test the most common allergies one by one. An excellent solution by CHI Health Innovations uses an advanced resonance testing device from Germany to test for up to 250 of the most common allergens at one time. For this test only a hair sample and a blood sample are required.FFA OCT 09
11.
How do I get my allergies treated?
…
Level 1 - Desensitization
Initial tests and history taken, BioFast™ Advanced Allergy Testing, personalized gut healing, enzyme therapy, detoxification, desensitization and reprogramming, removing exposure to toxinsFFA OCT 09
12.
In his short lifetime, little Jess has endured dozens of painful allergy tests, and in addition to breast milk, was found to be allergic to eggs, wheat, citrus, meat, and peanuts.
...
On the first visit, I found that Jess is also allergic to cow’s milk (which is in his formula) and a whole range of other foods, even to some of his own body chemicals.YAC OCT 09
13.
But what my team and I specialise in is identifying and treating hidden allergies. .
YAC OCT 09
14.
Key elements of the multi-modal BioFASTTM Program
...
Advanced Allergy Assessment
Renew You offers a different range of assessment options depending on the patients needs and preferences. Pathlab offers the ALCAT 150 food sensitivity test. Analytical Reference Laboratory offers testing for 93 food sensitivities based on igE measurements. Many clients choose the Advanced Allergy & Sensitivity Assessment procedure based on the German Bruce Copen Laboratory Resonance System from Germany. This assessment addresses the most common 250 allergy groups or single allergies to which Australians are currently exposed in our lives every day.ALH JAN 10
ALH JUN 10
CDS/DVDs
Reference CD/DVD D-B “Overcoming your allergies” (CD) D-C “The Art of Reliable Muscle Testing to Improve Your Health and Life” (DVD)
S/ment No Time Statement of Concern Source 15.
Track 2, 25:25
Dzung Price states: ‘How do we test and diagnose your allergies? Well we test for the allergies and we test also for the underlying causes of allergies or sensitivities. We diagnose allergies in a number of ways. We can use a computerised electrodermal screening device called the Orion Explorer which measures conductions or resistance at specific acupuncture points on your hand and we use it as a diagnostic tool to identify food, environmental and chemical allergy triggers. We can also employ applied kinesiology or muscle testing and this can be um this can be often a very useful tool for us to also teach a client and train them to help them identify for themselves their own allergy triggers in their environment. There are more conventional tests such as skin prick tests or blood tests and they may be performed if required.’
D-B
16.
Track 3, 16:26
Dzung Price states: ‘Well, we test allergies and we also test for the for the underlying cause of your allergies or sensitivities so we diagnose in them in a number of ways. We can use a computerised electrodermal screening device called Orion Explorer and it measures conductions and resistance at specific acupuncture points and we use it as a diagnostic tool to screen different food, chemical and environmental triggers. We may also employ applied kinesiology or muscle testing as a testing tool to identify reactive substances in the environment and also the additional way to train clients to help them identify for themselves their own allergy triggers in their environment. We also use conventional more conventional tests if necessary such as blood tests, skin prick tests if required.’
D-B
17.
4:46
Dzung Price states: ‘A lot of allergies are actually hidden, that means they’re not obvious to you and they present as many of those bizarre unconnected symptoms that you might be experiencing and you don’t realise that it’s your body’s response to that substance that is giving you that symptom.
...
When we first go and identify what those hidden allergies are we can then reprogram those allergies and actually have a different response. So I test her for all her foods and found that she reacted to a lot of her foods in her diet that she was eating every day. Her wheat products, her dairy products, it was even fruit and vegetables.’D-C
18.
9:49
Dzung Price states: ‘Now a lot of people when I test them they have a lot of allergies to basic nutrients such as protein, you know vitamin C, vitamin Bs, sugars, iron, vitamin A, wheat.’
D-C
19.
13:10
Dzung Price states: ‘So you might ask “well yes how did I get to be here in the first place? You know because I didn’t know I had any allergies.” A lot of people tell me “I don’t have any allergies”, but yet when I test them they’ve got quite a few hidden allergies.’
D-C
20.
42:22
Dzung Price states: ‘This lady that I saw that had a lot of fatigue, we found that she had a lot of hidden food allergies. She had allergies to basic foundational nutrients like she had allergies to vitamin Bs, so she couldn’t even deal with stress she couldn’t make serotonin to make her feel good, she was allergic to magnesium and zinc, her protein she was allergic to her to eggs and chicken and meat so when she ate those foods she couldn’t she didn’t feel good, she just felt tired, so every time she ate protein instead of supporting and repairing her body it just made her tired.’
D-C
Print Publications: Booklets
Reference Booklet B-A “Heal Your Child’s Allergies At Home – Easily and Naturally!” (Allergy Relief Now Website and Chi Health Website) B-B “The Special Allergy Report” (Allergy Relief Now Website) B-C “Welcome to the Renew You Journey” (Renew You Journey Website) B-D “Naturally Overcome the Peanut Allergy Epidemie: Special Report” (Peanut Allergy Free Website)
S/ment No Page No Statement of Concern Source 21.
23-24
The most effective way to relieve your child from the worry, burden and distress of allergies or substance sensitivities is to identify and desensitize your child to allergens.
...
BioFAST identifies and clears the allergies that cause these symptoms – without pain, without unpleasant side effects, and very fast.B-A
22.
21-22 (B-B)
17-19 (B-D)Diagnosing Your Allergies or Sensitivities
…
Alternative Testing Methods
Alternative medicine practitioners also employ a variety of non-traditional medical screening tests to detect allergies, sensitivities and food intolerances. These include: resonance testing, electrodermal screening test (also known as EAV or electroacupuncture by Voll), muscle response testing, cytotoxic test, prime test, applied kinesiological screening, pulse test, saliva test, meridian scanning test, computerized organ scanners, Kirlian photography, and electromagnetic force measurements.B-B
B-D23.
25
(B-B)21
(B-D)Allergy Breakthrough
After helping thousands of patients with allergies, my colleague and I kept looking for better ways to test and eliminate allergies, especially for ways to speed up the process and detoxify the body at the same time.
...
The first results exceeded our expectations! After 3 years of testing and refining, the fastest, most complete, natural BioFAST Allergy Free Program was born.
[Signed]
Bojan SchianetzB-B
B-D24.
16
Core Allergy & Food Sensitivity Evaluation Panel
…This test will evaluate the most important core 250 allergy groups people are commonly exposed to in our food and environment. This will be performed from a sample of your hair and blood and scanned with a highly advanced resonance equipment developed by a German company (Bruce Copen Laboratories) over the last 60 years.B-C
“Your Allergy Free Child” printed and electronic editions:
Reference Edition P-A “Your Allergy Free Child” Book (printed edition) E-A “Your Allergy Free Child” Electronically-delivered Book (E-Book)
S/ment No Statement of Concern P-A Page No E-A Page No 25.
Case study
…On assessment, I found that [8 year-old Dallas] was reacting to quite a number of foods, basic nutrients, certain colors such as red, food additives and colors, artificial sweeteners, moulds, dust mix, neurotransmitters, brain parts and certain vaccinations.
...
I did an accelerated treatment on Dallas for his basic allergens.29
24
26.
Using a combination of special techniques and cutting edge bioresonance equipment, BioFAST can accurately identify up [to] 500 allergies and eliminate 6 allergies per session.
109
N/A
27.
Case Study
…
When I saw [8 month-old] Jemma, she was a little small for her age but was otherwise healthy looking. An allergy assessment (surrogate testing through mom) revealed that Jemma was reacting to nearly all the basic ingredients in food including the phenolics. She was allergic to egg mix, vitamin C, B complex, sugar mix, vit A mix, iron mix, grain mix, milk mix and phenolics. She was even reacting to water at some level.110-111
89
28.
The BioFAST system identifies and clears the allergies that cause these symptoms – without pain, without unpleasant side effects, and quickly.
112-113
91
29.
BioFAST speeds up the process with ultra-modern bioresonance equipment that interacts quickly and powerfully with the body's energy field. With this equipment, your BioFAST practitioner can test many allergens at one time, as well as treat the different sensitivities at the same time.
113
92
SCHEDULE A
STATEMENTS BY NEW LIFE / RENEW YOUPART 2: ALLERGY ELIMINATION AND SUCCESSFUL ALLERGY TREATMENT REPRESENTATION
Webpages
Reference Webpage Reference Webpage ARN Oct 09 Allergy Relief Now 29/10/09 NWB Oct 09 Newlife Wellbeing 27/10/09 RYJ Oct 09 Renew You Journey 14/10/09 AFC Oct 09 Allergy Free Child 27/10/09 RYJ Jun 10 Renew You Journey 29/6/10 CHI Oct 09 Chi Health Innovations 27/10/09 ALH Jun 10 Allergy Help 18/6/10 CHI Jun 10 Chi Health Innovations 25/6/10 BAF Oct 09 BioFast Allergy Free 27/10/09 YAC Oct 09 Your Allergy Free Child 21/10/09 FFA Oct 09 Free From Allergies 27/10/09
S/ment No Statement of Concern Source 30.
Can I eat what I want after being treated?
…
Also, even though the food you have been treated for no longer affects you, too much of it can put a big strain on your digestive enzymes, and cause you to become allergic to that food in future.BAF OCT 09
31.
What is BioFAST™?
BioFAST™ is an advanced natural holistic program for all allergy sufferers and related conditions. Its full name is the BioFAST™Allergy Free Program. It is based on Advanced Energy Medicine, Nutritional Medicine, Detoxification and Gut Healing and is one of the most advanced holistic programs available for long term allergy relief and detoxification.BAF OCT 09
FFA OCT 09
ALH JUN 1032.
How does BioFast™ compare to other allergy clinic/treatment programs?
...
Most other clinics treat one allergy at one session, whereas we desensitize for up to 6 allergies per session. (This is beneficial for children, who can be significantly stressed by repeated sessions)BAF OCT 09
FFA OCT 09
ALH JUN 1033.
That’s why we call the allergies the ROAD BLOCK to long term health.
If you want to get past a road block to health, you need to first remove it. Then, you can proceed towards the health you desire. That’s exactly what happens when you go through the BioFAST™ program. First, we remove the road blocks...BAF OCT 09
FFA OCT 09
ALH JUN 1034.
How long will it take to be free of allergic reactions?
As a general rule it depends on your initial health conditions, allergy load, toxic load, lifestyle and ongoing stresses. Generally our Programs take from 2-9 month, depending also on your commitment.BAF OCT 09
FFA OCT 09
ALH JUN 1035.
I already know what I am allergic to, as I have had blood tests etc. Can I just be treated for those allergies without additional testing?
Yes, definitelyBAF OCT 09
FFA OCT 09
ALH JUN 1036.
I am pregnant. Should I get my allergies treated now or later?
We recommend you to treat your allergies as soon as possible to allow your child to develop the best and most robust immune system possible.BAF OCT 09
FFA OCT 09
ALH JUN 1037.
How will I know if the treatment has worked?
...
Clients who follow our recommendations generally get rid of allergy symptoms very soon after each treatment session. If you now experience many or quite strong symptoms, you may notice improvements very soon after beginning the program. If you presently enjoy a higher level of health, the improvements may be more subtle. Either way, you can measure the success of your treatments by the reduction or elimination of your symptoms, and improved wellbeing.BAF OCT 09
FFA OCT 09
ALH JUN 1038.
Can I be treated just for one allergy?
Yes. You can be desensitized to only one allergy.BAF OCT 09
ALH JUN 1039.
BioFAST™ can desensitize or neutralize up to six allergy groups or allergens per session.
BAF OCT 09
ALH JUN 1040.
How does BioFASTTM actually work?
BioFAST™ is one of the most successful programs on the market. 87% of clients with allergy symptoms get significant relief from their allergy-related symptoms along with amazing improvements in their health.BAF OCT 09
ALH JUN 1041.
BioFASTTM is one of the most advanced and effective allergy program available for you on the market, and comes with many added benefits not found elsewhere. Thousands of clients worldwide have achieved excellent results on the program. It is based on Advanced Energy Medicine, Nutritional Medicine, Detoxification and Gut Healing and is one of the most advanced holistic programs available for long term allergy relief and detoxification.
RYJ OCT 09
42.
Allergy Help
Do you suffer from Allergies and Food Sensitivities?
The Successful BioFast Allergy Relief Program Could Be The Answer To Your Problems
The BioFASTTM Allergy Relief Program was developed out of a need to resolve the underlying problems of allergies. ... The successful BioFAST system was developed to meet the unique individual needs of the sufferer. It has successfully relieved the conditions of thousands of patients nationally and internationally.RYJ JUN 10
43.
Allergy Relief System
This is the heart of The BioFAST™ Program. Yes, it is possible to relieve the symptoms of allergy sufferers with our allergy relief sessions. This process is completely drug-free and painless and requires only a few sessions.RYJ JUN 10
44.
Allergy Help
...
Do you Really Know What’s Behind Your Health Issues?
BioFASTTM is an advanced natural holistic program for all people suffering from food and substances sensitivities and reacting to any of those. BioFASTTM is one of the most complete program on food and substances sensitivities available for you on the market, and comes with many added benefits not found elsewhere. Hundreds of clients in Australia and worldwide have achieved excellent results on the program.
...
With this technology and carefully designed energy frequency patterns, BioFASTTM can quickly and powerfully target your body’s informational systems to change your body’s cellular health, which determines your body’s health and wellbeing. This plus the precise combination of natural therapies and health education to promote your own body’s healing make the BioFASTTM substance Sensitivity Program very effective.RYJ JUN 10
45.
“Thousands of convinced clients prove that everyone who follows our step by step revolutionary Allergy Fast Track Program will experience dramatic allergy relief – Guaranteed.”
....
BioFAST™ Allergy Free
Exclusively at the RENEW-YOU Centre for Wellbeing and Longevity
Brisbane and the Gold CoastARN OCT 09
46.
Allergies and Your Child
If you, your children or others you know and love, have been brought to a near-standstill by allergies, here we show you a way forward that can promise most sufferers (parents and children) amazing relief and, in most cases, complete deliverance from allergy symptoms.ARN OCT 09
47.
BioFAST Allergy Elimination Program
If your assessed Allergy Index is over 25% in your initial consultation, we will propose you as the first step to maximum health one of the BioFAST Programs. This program will help you to get rid of allergies, sensitivities and intolerances to food, environmental substances and toxins, and any other substances that may be undermining your health, once and for all.NWB Oct 09
48.
BioFAST Allergy Elimination Program
(BioActive Fast Allergy Solution Therapy)NWB Oct 09
49.
Do you guarantee that the program will work?
...
In our experience, around 86% of patients are successfully cleared of their allergic symptoms after the desensitization period or 2 to 3 month. Approximately 12% have health conditions which requires a prolonged detoxification, gut healing and correcting nutritional deficiencies. This process can take around 12 month. 2% of the clients with more severe conditions can take a longer period to recover their immune system.
If you follow our program, there is a very high probability that you will achieve fast results.FFA OCT 09
50.
The BioFast™ Allergy Breakthrough Story
...
There had to be a better way, and we were determined to find it … a safe natural, effective treatment that could get rid of allergies fast!
...
Finally in 2006, after 17 years of research and intensive testing, we had a breakthrough that turned allergy treatment completely on its head, and it is now bringing fast, effective allergy relief to many. The BioFast™ Allergy Free Program is the fastest and most complete natural allergy treatment available today, yet it is surprisingly simple because it works with the body’s own natural healing energies. Using cutting edge subtle energy technology, BioFast™ harnesses the power of nature for superior allergy relief and life-enhancing benefits.FFA OCT 09
51.
What is BioFast™?
BioFast™ is a fast, natural, innovative allergy program that clears your allergies AND targets the underlying health issues that cause them.FFA OCT 09
52.
What the BioFast™ Program Will Do For You
...Desensitize you to the substances that affect you (We treat 6 allergy groups / combinationsin [sic] one session)FFA OCT 09
53.
What is the BioFast™ Process?
...
The BioFast desensitization sessions take only 30 minutes. In each treatment session, you will be desensitized to the allergens or allergen combinations that are affecting you. Most programs treat for only 1 substance per visit, but thanks to our powerful technology, we can safely and effectively treat for 6 allergy groups and combinations at a time. This means faster elimination of allergies with fewer visits. This is a tremendous benefit for children who can become easily stressed by too many treatment sessions.FFA OCT 09
54.
“At my clinics, we’ve come up with a program that includes painless, non-invasive testing methods, lifestyle changes, emotional clearing, and natural healing modalities to successfully eliminate allergy in hundreds of our patients, including infants,” ... said Schianetz.
...
For information on the B-SAFE Allergy Elimination Program, which can be completed from anywhere in the world, click here.FFA OCT 09
55.
The best solution to food allergies is desensitization. Your body and brain are re-programmed to be unaffected by the foods that now cause you to have an allergic reaction. You can learn to do this yourself, or if you prefer, we have a wonderful programme that has helped many allergy sufferers – young and old – overcome sensitivities and begin an allergy-free life.
The most effective way to end the worry and distress of allergy is to desensitize yourself (or your child) to allergens. Find out about Renew You’s successful allergy treatment program at or contact us through this website.FFA OCT 09
56.
How many desensitization treatments will I need?
That will depend on the number of your allergies. BioFast™ desensitizes up to 6 allergy groups in just one treatment session, whereas most programs treat only 1 allergy per session. A person with 18 allergies, therefore will require only 3 desensitization treatment sessions. This is a tremendous benefit for children who can become easily stressed by too many treatment sessions.FFA OCT 09
57.
Overcome Allergies Fast And Naturally
Allergies can be successfully relieved. You can Recover. A New Advanced Allergy Relief Program Helped Thousands to Get Back Health And Freedom.FFA OCT 09
58.
Sometimes you may hear there is no cure for allergies. The good news is: there is a solution.
...
So, with the help of one of the most amazing holistic doctors in Australia, I was able to put together a complete, holistic, and integrated program called BioFast™ - the same program that helped me to feel like myself again, healthy and energized. Since my successful rehabilitation, the BioFast program has helped literally thousands of my clients – both adults and children – to overcome such a health challenge.
...
Make an appointment at our Renew-You clinics at Brisbane or Gold Coast today, and request a comprehensive allergy test. Based on the results my team will develop your personalized BioFast™ program; one that will give you back your energy and health. This is the start of a new life for you and/or your children; the one you were meant to live.FFA OCT 09
59.
The good news is that all allergies are treatable, even Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. However, to address the allergy properly, it is important to treat the underlying causes, and not just the allergy symptoms. The BioFAST Allergy Free Program has successfully treated hundreds of children with allergies. You can find information on this website.
FFA OCT 09
60.
How long will it take to be free of allergic reactions?
....
In our experience, around 86% of patients are successfully cleared of their allergic symptoms after the desensitization period of 2 to 3 month. Approximately 12% have health conditions which requires prolonged detoxification, gut healing and correcting nutritional deficiencies. This process can take around 12 month. 2% of clients with more severe conditions can take a longer period to recover their immune system.FFA OCT 09
YAC OCT 0961.
BioFAST Allergy Elimination Program
(Bio-Active Fast Allergy Solution Therapy)FFA OCT 09
62.
AllergyFreeChild.com
7 Simple Steps to Get Rid of Allergies Naturally!AFC OCT 09
63.
CHI™ ELECTROMAGNETIC DETOX SALT CRYSTALS
They may be invisible but electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs) are all around us, and they can interfere with the body’s own natural electric frequencies, making us sick.
...
EMFs can also aggravate existing allergies or trigger new ones....
In response to the alarming increases in these and other serious conditions, CHI™ Health Innovations has produced a series of remedies to help protect you from these harmful influences. These remedies are natural, safe and very effective, and can be of great benefit to anyone who is serious about their and their family’s health and wellbeing.
Electromagnetic Detox Salts may help you to:
...
reduce the severity or incidence of allergic reactions
...
...
How do I know that these Detox Crystals work?
We use them since May 2006 in our Renew You Centres with great success for detoxification, allergies and sensitivities and protection against food toxinsCHI OCT 09
CHI JUN 10
64.
CHI™ ENVIRONMENTAL DETOX SALT CRYSTALS
...
Continuous or high exposure to environment toxins can result in serious health conditions such as immunotoxicity, endocrine disruption, allergies, asthma, anaphylaxis or autoimmune diseases.
...
In response to alarming increases in these and other serious conditions, CHI Health Innovations has produced a series of remedies to help protect you from harmful toxic influences. These remedies are natural, safe and very effective, and can be of great benefit to anyone who is serious about their and their family’s health and wellbeing.
Environmental Detox Salts may help to:
...
reduce the frequency and/or severity of allergies and/or asthma, and prevent you from developing multiple allergies
...
How do I know that these Detox Crystals work?
We use them since May 2006 in our Renew You Centres with great success for detoxification allergies and sensitivities and protection against food toxins.CHI OCT 09
CHI JUN 1065.
CHI™ FOOD DETOX SALT CRYSTALS
...
A major issue with GM food is its potential to increase allergies and anaphylaxis in humans. Despite these concerns, GM foods are spread out all over much of the world causing allergic reactions, and possibly contributing to the rise in all kinds of immune and auto-immune diseases and resistance to antibiotics.
...
In response to alarming increases in these and other serious conditions, CHI Health Innovations has produced a series of remedies to help protect you from harmful toxic influences. These remedies are natural, safe and very effective, and can be of great benefit to anyone who is serious about their and their family’s health and wellbeing.
Food Detox Crystals may help to:
relieve symptoms caused by food allergies, sensitivities and intolerances
quickly reduce or mitigate an adverse reaction to food
How do I know that these Detox Crystals work?
We use them since May 2006 in our Renew You Centres with great success for detoxification, allergies and sensitivities and protection against food toxins.CHI OCT 09
CHI JUN 1066.
CHI™ ORGAN DETOX FORMULA 1
If you have allergies, are frequently ill, feel generally unwell most of the time, or look and feel older than your years, your organs are probably clogged with toxins.
…
Researchers have found that these accumulated toxins are a major cause of disease, and have been linked to allergies...
In response to the alarming increases in these and other serious conditions, CHI Health Innovations has produced a series of remedies to help protect you from these harmful influences. These remedies are natural, safe and very effective and can be of great benefit to anyone who is serious about their and their family’s health and wellbeing.
... the Organ Detox Drops can help them to more efficiently release and eliminate accumulated toxins...
Organ detoxification can help to reduce allergy symptoms, ...
Organ Detox Drops may help you to:
...
reduce allergy symptoms
...
How do I know that these Detox Drops work?
We have been using them in our Renew You Centres since May 2006 with great success for detoxification, allergies and sensitivities and as part of our anti-aging and health programs.CHI OCT 09
CHI JUN 1067.
CHI™ VACCINATION DETOX SALT CRYSTALS
...
Evidence suggests that early vaccinations damage the child’s still-immature immune system, leading to allergies.
...
We have found these particular salts very helpful for relieving allergic conditions associated with vaccines in both children and adults.
Vaccination Detox Salts may help to:
reduce or eliminate the harmful effects of vaccines, both past and present, on the body
How do I know that these Detox Crystals work?
We use them since May 2006 in our Renew You Centres with great success for detoxification, allergies and sensitivities and to improve healing.CHI OCT 09
CHI JUN 1068.
CHI™ ENVIRO SHIELD
…
The Enviro Shield may help to:
...
relieve or reduce allergy symptoms triggered by exposure to EMFs
How do I know that the Enviro Shield works?
We have used it since 2008 in our Renew You Centres with great success for patients and staff with allergies and sensitivities related to electromagnetic frequencies.CHI OCT 09
CHI JUN 1069.
To generate orders and earn more income, use large eye-catching headlines such as:
Allergy Free Child Naturally – Guaranteed
Discover How You Can End The Misery Of Allergy For You And Your Child
Allergy free in 30 days or less!
You can do something about your child’s allergies – right now. Safely, naturally and permanently!
Breakthrough Allergy Cure revealed!
Discover how to beat your child’s allergies quickly and easily without injections or drugs!YAC OCT 09
70.
If you are a mother of an allergic child and you’ve tried in vain to find a solution, then this may be the most exciting message you have ever read…
…
But first let me tell you Jess’s story…
…
In his short lifetime, little Jess has endured dozens of painful allergy tests, and in addition to breast milk, was found to be allergic to eggs, wheat, citrus, meat, and peanuts.
...
On the first visit, I found that Jess is also allergic to cow’s milk (which is in his formula) and a whole range of other foods, even to some of his own body chemicals.
...
Now that we have begun treating Jess, mom can finally breathe a huge sigh of relief as she sees improvements from week to week.
...
Because Jess is so ill, he needs some expert care to heal from his allergies and to build his health to an acceptable level, so he will see me for a few months, then continue on a maintenance program.
...
Incidentally, I am also treating mom, who also has allergies though she didn’t know it before.YAC OCT 09
71.
Before I wrote this book, I spent 17 years treating children just like yours, with allergies ranging from mild to very severe.
YAC OCT 09
72.
In 17 years of clinical practice, I’ve used a unique mix of western medicine and eastern therapies to help thousands of patients suffering from allergies and related immune diseases.
YAC OCT 09
73.
As a doctor who has treated thousands of allergic children, I am giving you the benefit of my 17 years experience treating all kinds of allergic and allergy-related conditions.
YAC OCT 09
74.
But what my team and I specialise in is identifying and treating hidden allergies. We provide a gentle, fast, effective, non-invasive allergy elimination technique to reprogram the body back to wellness. This technique gets amazing results in children who’ve been traumatized by needles or standard allergy densensitization procedures. And in children with severe, life threatening allergies.
YAC OCT 09
Associate Professor Douglass observed that her research had not revealed any credible scientific evidence to support the NAET, which did not form part of the scientific literature in allergic disease and was not based on her clinical experience in Australia and internationally, including attendance at international conferences.
Associate Professor Douglass further stated:
I have consulted published papers on the NAET technique, medical journal search engines including PubMed and Medline for specific papers that have reference to NAET but was unable to find credible scientific evidence to support the efficacy of the NAET technique. The NAET technique does not form part of the scientific literature in allergic disease.
In my experience, NAET is not a medically accepted treatment for allergic disease. My decision on this is based upon my clinical experience in allergy practice, both in Australia and in the UK, my attendance at international meetings of allergy practitioners where advances in techniques are discussed, together with the failure of these techniques to be discussed in the medical text books and published practice guidelines for allergy treatments.
…
Given the international consensus definition of allergic disease having an immunological basis, the NAET technique does not identify an underlying immunological basis for disease and therefore cannot be said to accurately diagnose and treat allergies. In my experience and in my understanding of current practice and science in the field of allergic disease, the NAET technique is not a medically validated or reproducible method for the diagnosis and/or treatment of allergic diseases.
…
In my clinical practice and experience, NAET, muscle strength testing, diagnostic resonance testing, kinesiology, dowsing, radionics, homeopathy, the ALCAT tests, electrodermal testing, herbal therapies, detoxification, chinese medicine, acupuncture, acupressure, enzyme supplements or probiotics do not comprise methods of diagnosis or treatment of allergic disease with scientific evidence to support their efficacy.
The reports cited that I have read do not provide a rational scientific basis for the diagnosis or treatment of allergic disease for any of the techniques referred to above. I am supported in this by national and international publications.
…
I am concerned that an individual with a serious allergy who has undergone the NAET technique treatment may falsely consider themselves cured and thereby expose themselves to risk by consuming a food which has previously provoked a reaction and which they have previously avoided.
The muscle strength test or electrodermal testing is not a validated method for detecting IgE to food allergens. Individuals at risk of anaphylaxis due to food allergy with high levels of IgE to a food are unlikely to be diagnosed by these techniques and are therefore unlikely to receive appropriate food avoidance advice. In addition, such patients will be denied the often life-saving measures of an emergency plan and therapy. This could have severe outcomes.
Professor Douglass’ conclusion that there is no sufficient scientific evidence or consensus on the validity or efficacy of the NAET clearly applies to the BioFast system, in so far as it incorporates a number of the same underlying techniques.
THE DECLARATIONS
As noted in the March reasons, notwithstanding the enactment of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 7 item 6 to the Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Act (No. 2) 2010 (Cth) preserves the operation of the Trade Practices Act in relation to acts or omissions that occurred before the commencement of the new legislation. The Trade Practices Act thus applies to the respondents’ conduct in this case.
In the March reasons, I concluded that in accordance with the preponderance of relevant authority, the court had power to make declarations sought by consent on the basis of a statement of agreed facts in an ACCC instituted proceeding.
In ACCC v MSY Technology Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2011] FCA 382 (“ACCC v MSY”), Perram J has since expressed the view that, although declarations as to public rights may be made on the basis of an agreed statement of facts, they may not be made by consent. Rather, such declarations may be made only if a contradictor has contested the relief.
Perram J identified the two principal impediments to the making of declarations by consent and on the basis of agreed facts as:
(a)the principle derived from Wallersteiner v Moir [1974] 1 WLR 991 (“Wallersteiner v Moir”) suggesting that declarations should not be made on submissions, but only on evidence (“the evidence requirement”); and
(b)the principle derived from Lord Dunedin’s speech in Russian Commercial and Industrial Bank v British Bank for Foreign Trade Ltd [1921] 2 AC 438 (“Russian Commercial”) suggesting that a declaration may not be made in the absence of a contradictor (“the contradictor requirement”).
On a detailed analysis of the judicial antecedents in the above principles, Perram J concluded that the evidence requirement derived from Wallersteiner v Moir was based on a misreading of the authorities and was otherwise unpersuasive.
Further, in Perram J’s view, Finkelstein J’s holding in ACCC v Allergy Pathway Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 74 that a judge of the Federal Court was bound not to grant a declaration involving a public right in the absence of supportive evidence was based on a misconstruction of the ratio of BMI Ltd v Federated Clerks Union of Australia (1983) 76 FLR 141 (“BMI”).
In contrast, Perram J recognised that Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 (“Forster”) imposed a binding requirement for a proper contradictor. In Forster, Gibbs J (with whom McTiernan, Stephen and Mason JJ agreed on that issue) approved Lord Dunedin’s description of a proper contradictor in Russian Commercial as “some one presently existing who has a true interest to oppose the declaration sought” (at 437 to 438).
In Perram J’s view, the majority in BMI (Keely and Beaumont JJ) held that, additionally, a contradictor was “a party arguing against the granting of the relief and that this could not be satisfied where the matter proceeded by consent” (at [32]). Perram J considered that, as the absence of a contradictor (in the sense of a party contesting the declaratory relief sought) was the basis of the majority’s decision in BMI, a single judge of the Federal Court was bound not to make a declaration involving a public right in the absence of a contest on the question.
His Honour nevertheless concluded that the majority view in BMI was probably incorrect and acknowledged that, contrary to his understanding of BMI, a large number of declarations by consent had in fact been made by this court.
Perram J concluded at [43]:
(d)this court is bound by Forster not to make declarations without a contradictor;
(e)as a matter of correct legal doctrine a contradictor will be present when all proper defendants have been joined and so are bound to the result. They will not cease to be contradictors merely because they consent to the proposed declarations;
(f)BMI has, as its ratio decidendi, the contrary proposition which binds me.
While in my view his Honour’s conclusions in sub‑paragraphs 43 (d) and (e) are correct, I am not, with respect, persuaded that the ratio of BMI is such as to preclude single judges of this court from making declarations involving a public right in the absence of a contradictor who contests that relief.
In BMI, the applicants, a group of employer organisations, sought three distinct species of relief, viz:
(a)an interpretation under s 110 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth) (“C&A Act”) of certain provisions of a federal award,
(b)declarations under s 21 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth); and
(c)declarations under s 108 of the C&A Act as “a person interested” that a State award was invalid under s 65 of the C&A Act, in so far as it purported to bind BMI in respect of employees engaged to perform various categories of work within three classifications of the federal award.
The applicants’ first two claims were dealt with by a single judge, but the third claim for a declaration under s 108 of C&A Act was required to be heard by the Full Court.
The majority (Keely and Beaumont JJ) in their joint reasons observed that there was no opposition at the hearing of the application for the declaration under s 108 of the C&A Act. The applicants presented full argument, but the respondents represented at the hearing merely indicated that they raised no objection to declarations in the terms sought.
The majority observed that the discussions of Buckley and Scarman LLJ in Wallersteiner v Moir of the evidence requirement were pertinent to the present case. The majority stated that under s 108(3), the court had a discretion as to whether, in a particular case, it was appropriate to make a declaration and circumstances which must exist for the making of a declaration.
Their Honours stated (at 153):
For the reasons advanced by Buckley LJ and Scarman J above we think that it is generally undesirable that the court should grant relief by way of declaratory orders under s. 108 in the absence of any contest on the question.
Their Honours contemplated that it might be different if the matter were merely one of private right, but recognised that in the case before them, the declarations, if made, could practically extend well beyond the parties and would be seen to express the court’s views, notwithstanding that it had not had the benefit of any contrary argument.
Their Honours proceeded to consider extensively a number of different matters, which also weighed against the exercise of their discretion, including:
(a)The fact that there were no practical benefit or useful purpose from the court’s expression of its views on the question, as it had become, due to the agreement of the parties, academic.
(b)There were doubts about whether the federal award applied to the first applicant, BMI, as BMI may have been a member of an employers’ association expressly excluded from the application of that award.
(c) It was arguable that the State award was not inconsistent with the federal award.
(d)There was doubt about, and no evidence of, the eligibility of BMI employees for membership of the State union or of any other respondent who consented to the declaration.
(e)The form of the declaration sought was unsatisfactory, because it declared an invalidity limited to certain activities of a particular employer, and, if made, could cause confusion, as it might be assumed that the court had found the State award otherwise valid.
Their Honours concluded (at 155) that:
In the circumstances we would decline to make the declaration sought. It is apparent from what we have said that the refusal of the relief sought is made on discretionary grounds…
In my opinion, while the majority in BMI characterised a proper contradictor as a party who contested the question, their discussion of that issue was expressly within the context of an application under s 108 of the C&A Act and the peculiar features of the case before them. On my reading of their Honours’ reasons, they did not purport to enunciate absolute requirements for a proper contradictor generally applicable in all contexts. Further, the absence of a proper contradictor (as defined) was but one of a number of factors which the majority proceeded to consider as relevant to the exercise of their discretion. Their Honours noted that the absence of a contradictor who contested the relief sought had a particular impact on some other relevant factors, but it did not appear to be, in itself, decisive. Their Honours’ comprehensive analysis of a number of other relevant factors suggests the contrary.
As the joint submissions stated:
77.The true ratio in BMI Ltd is that, as a matter of discretion, the Court was not persuaded to grant the declaratory relief because of a stated concern that such an order could give a misleading impression in relation to activities of parties not before the Court. This (merely) reflects an exercise of discretion in the circumstances of that case. The majority judgment neither states nor purports to state a more general principle of the type identified by Perram J.
78.Further, and in any event, the matters causing concern which presented in BMI Ltd do not present in the circumstances of the present case. Those matters, identified above, that persuaded the Court in BMI Ltd to exercise its discretion to not make the declaration there sought by the applicant are not present in this controversy.
For the above reasons, in my opinion, the BMI majority’s requirement for a contradictor contesting the relief sought may be confined to declarations sought under the particular legislation relevant in that case and, moreover, was but one of a number of factors relevant to the exercise of the discretion.
Consequently, I considered that in the present case, the requirement for a proper contradictor was satisfied despite the absence of any contest, and it was both permissible and appropriate to make the relevant declarations by consent.
THE PENALTIES
In contrast to the relief it sought against the March respondents, the ACCC sought the imposition of pecuniary penalties of $125,000.00 in total between NewLife and Renew You and $30,000.00 on each of Mr Schianetz and Ms Price, to which the relevant respondents consented.
The power to impose a pecuniary penalty is conferred by s 76E of the Trade Practices Act, which relevantly provides:
(1)If the Court is satisfied that a person:
(a)has contravened any of the following provisions:
…
(ii)a provision of Division 1 or 1AAA of Part V (other than section 52) …
…
the Court may order the person to pay to the Commonwealth such pecuniary penalty, in respect of each act or omission by the person to which this section applies, as the Court determines to be appropriate.
(2)In determining the appropriate pecuniary penalty, the Court must have regard to all relevant matters including:
(a)the nature and extent of the act or omission and of any loss or damage suffered as a result of the act or omission; and
(b)the circumstances in which the act or omission took place; and
(c)whether the person has previously been found by the Court in proceedings under Part VC or this Part to have engaged in any similar conduct.
Section 76E came into effect on 15 April 2010 and was thereafter repealed, but the Trade Practices Act as in force immediately prior to 1 January 2011 continues to apply to acts or omissions that occurred before that date. While the contravening conduct of the respondents commenced well before 15 April 2010, pecuniary penalties were sought in relation to conduct that took place on or after that date.
Applicable principles
Although s 76E was in force for a relatively short time and there are few reported decisions on it, the principles relevant to the purpose and assessment of penalties under s 76 (a similar, albeit not identical, regime) provide guidance. Relevant authorities recognise that the principal purpose of a penalty under s 76 is deterrence, both specific and general.
As the joint submissions stated:
102. In TPC v CSR Ltd, French J stated:
"The principal, and I think probably the only, object of the penalties imposed by s.76 is to attempt to put a price on contravention that is sufficiently high to deter repetition by the contravener and by others who might be tempted to contravene the Act."
103.This articulation was repeated by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, in ACCC v High Adventure, where Heerey, Finkelstein and Allsop JJ stated, at [11], that:
"...the principal, if not the sole, purpose for the imposition of penalties for a contravention of the antitrust provisions in Part IV is deterrence, both specific and general. This rule is so well entrenched that citation of authority is unnecessary.”
104.In ACCC v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd (No 3), Goldberg J concluded that:
"The penalty imposed must be substantial enough that the party realises the seriousness of its conduct and is not inclined to repeat such conduct. Obviously the sum required to achieve this object will be larger where the Court is setting a penalty for a company with vast resources. However, as specific deterrence is only one element and general deterrence must also be achieved, consideration of the party’s capacity to pay must be weighed against the need to impose a sum which members of the public will recognise as significant and proportionate to the seriousness of the contravention”.
…
142.In ACCC v Gourmet Goody's Family Restaurant Pty Ltd (t/as Steersons Steakhouse), Jagot J imposed the penalties pursuant to section 76E of the TPA for the first time. In that case, the respondents contravened section 53C of the TPA by failing to specify in a prominent way, and as a single figure, the single price for the goods supplied in their restaurant. An agreed pecuniary penalty of $13,200 was imposed against the respondents in respect of each of the two separate proceedings. In imposing the pecuniary penalty, Jagot J commented that:
"...it is important that I record that I am satisfied on the agreed statement of facts that the penalty which the parties have agreed between themselves in [sic] an appropriate reflection of the circumstances of the culpability of each respondent in the proceedings. In reaching this conclusion I have had regard to the fact that a principal object of a penalty under section 76 is deterrence."
In ACCC v MSY, Perram J stated at [72]:
There are remarks by a number of first instance judges that suggest that the penalty must be pitched at a sufficiently meaningful level to ensure that the penalties do not come to be seen as merely a cost of doing business... These comments were all made in the context of penalties imposed for breaches of Pt IV but I cannot perceive from s 76E that the Parliament considers these kind of breaches to be less serious. I accept, of course, that the penalty must not be so high so as to be oppressive...
In Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd (1991) ATPR 41-076 (“CSR”), French J held that in addition to the non‑exhaustive mandatory considerations in s 76 (which are the same as those in s 76E(2)(a)-(c)), relevant factors to the assessment of penalty recognised in the authorities included:
1.The nature and extent of the contravening conduct.
2.The amount of loss or damage caused.
3.The circumstances in which the conduct took place.
4.The size of the contravening company.
5.The degree of power it has, as evidenced by its market share and ease of entry into the market.
6.The deliberateness of the contravention and the period over which it extended.
7.Whether the contravention arose out of the conduct of senior management or at a lower level.
8.Whether the company has a corporate culture conducive to compliance with the Act, as evidenced by educational programs and disciplinary or other corrective measures in response to an acknowledged contravention.
9.Whether the company has shown a disposition to co-operate with the authorities responsible for the enforcement of the Act in relation to the contravention.
In subsequent decisions on s 76, courts considered other factors including the respondent’s financial position, whether the respondent has engaged in similar conduct in the past, and whether the conduct was systematic, deliberate or covert (see, for example, J McPhee & Son (Australia) Pty Ltd & Ors v ACCC (2000) 172 ALR 532; NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (1996) 71 FCR 285 (“NW Frozen Foods”); ACCC v April International Marketing Services Australia Pty Ltd (No 5) [2010] FCA 17).
The joint submissions also referred to Hartnell v Sharp Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd (1975) 5 ALR 493, where, in relation to criminal fines for making false representations that goods were of a particular standard, Smithers J stated (at 497) that the following matters were relevant:
(a) the importance of untrue statements and the departure from standards;
(b) the degree of wilfulness or carelessness in the making of the statements;
(c) the degree that the statement departs from the truth;
(d) the degree that the statement has been disseminated;
(e) what efforts have been made to correct the situation; and
(f)finally, to look at it in the context of the Trade Practices Act and to consider the deterrent effect of any penalty that must be imposed.
The factors identified in CSR and subsequent cases on s 76 have been applied in decisions on s 76E, (save for the contravenor’s degree of market power (see, for example, ACCC v Global One Mobile Entertainment Ltd [2011] FCA 393; ACCC v MSY; ACCC v Yellow Page Marketing BV (No 2) [2011] FCA 352)).
The Court must satisfy itself that a penalty jointly advocated by the parties is appropriate. As Branson, Sackville and Gyles JJ stated in Minister for Industry, Tourism & Resources v Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 72, the decision in NW Frozen Foods established the following propositions:
(i)It is the responsibility of the Court to determine the appropriate penalty to be imposed…
(ii)Determining the quantum of a penalty is not an exact science. Within a permissible range, the courts have acknowledged that a particular figure cannot necessarily be said to be more appropriate than another.
(iii)There is a public interest in promoting settlement of litigation, particularly where it is likely to be lengthy. Accordingly, when the regulator and contravenor have reached agreement, they may present to the Court a statement of facts and opinions as to the effect of those facts, together with joint submissions as to the appropriate penalty to be imposed.
(iv)The view of the regulator, as a specialist body, is a relevant, but not determinative consideration on the question of penalty…
(v)In determining whether the proposed penalty is appropriate, the Court examines all the circumstances of the case. Where the parties have put forward an agreed statement of facts, the Court may act on that statement if it is appropriate to do so.
(vi)Where the parties have jointly proposed a penalty, it will not be useful to investigate whether the Court would have arrived at that precise figure in the absence of agreement. The question is whether that figure is, in the Court’s view, appropriate in the circumstances of the case. In answering that question, the Court will not reject the agreed figure simply because it would have been disposed to select some other figure. It will be appropriate if within the permissible range.
In ACCC v Le Sands Restaurant & Ors [2011] FCA 105 (“ACCC v Le Sands”), Jagot J adopted (at [12]) the ACCC’s submissions that:
[p]rovided the Court is satisfied that the terms of the orders are appropriate, it is in the public interest for the Court to make orders on the terms that have been agreed between parties so as to encourage negotiated settlements.
Totality and parity
The principles applicable to criminal sentencing set out in Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 were transposed to civil penalties under s 76 (and by analogy, under s 76E) by Gyles J in ACCC v Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 683. The considerations of totality and parity relevant to criminal sentencing also apply in the present context. In ACCC v Telstra Corporation Ltd (2010) 188 FCR 238, Middleton J stated (at 277):
Application of the totality principle requires the Court to review the entirety of the conduct and to determine whether the proposed penalty is appropriate “as a whole”…
The rationale underlying the totality principle is to ensure that the proposed penalty is not out of proportion with the conduct giving rise to the contraventions when viewed collectively, and to ensure the penalty is accordingly just and appropriate from the perspective of that collective assessment.
In ACCC v Leahy Petroleum (No 3) (2005) 215 ALR 301, Goldberg J described the parity principle as follows (at [43]):
When dealing with several respondents whose situation and culpability are not the same, it is inevitable that different penalties will be imposed. Nevertheless it is necessary to bear in mind what is generally referred to as the parity principle. All other things being equal, similar conduct should be deserving of similar penalties. Of course, as the Full Court said in NW Frozen Foods… “other things are rarely equal where contraventions of the Trade Practices Act are concerned”. It is also desirable to bear in mind the penalties that have been imposed in past cases. A dramatic departure from previous practice might be seen as representing unjustifiable disparity but may also demonstrate that a level or quantum of previous penalties may, now in the present circumstances under consideration, be regarded as inadequate.
Recent decisions in relation to s 76E
As stated above, there are only a few decisions dealing with the imposition of pecuniary penalties under s 76E of the Trade Practices Act.
In ACCC v Gourmet Goody’s Family Restaurant Pty Ltd (t/as Steersons Steakhouse) [2010] FCA 1216 (“Gourmet Goody’s”), Jagot J imposed an agreed pecuniary penalty of $13,200 against the respondents pursuant to s 76E for publishing menus which did not prominently state, as a single figure, the single price for the goods supplied in their restaurants.
The cases of ACCC v Le Sands and ACCC v AI Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1377 (“ACCC v AI Constructions”) involved similar contraventions by cafés, for which pecuniary penalties of $15,000 and $20,000 were imposed respectively.
In ACCC v CI & Co Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1511 (“ACCC v CI”), North J imposed an agreed pecuniary penalty of $50,000 against the second respondent for selling eggs labelled “free range” or “fresh range Omega 3” when they were, in fact, cage eggs. In imposing this penalty, his Honour considered, inter alia, the following factors:
(a) the contravening conduct occurred over a relatively short period of time;
(b)the second respondent had not previously been found to have contravened the Trade Practices Act;
(c) the second respondent could have obtained significant revenue from his conduct;
(d)the conduct involved a high degree of dishonesty, and was extremely difficult to detect (because once eggs were placed in cartons, it was impossible to determine whether or not they were free range);
(e)the conduct was a “cruel deception” on consumers who hope to “advance the cause of animal welfare” by seeking out free range eggs as a matter of principle; and
(f)given that this type of conduct was apparently a problem in the egg industry, it was necessary to send a message that such conduct would be dealt with quickly.
The respondents’ contraventions in the present case were considerably more serious than the conduct in Gourmet Goody’s, ACCC v Le Sands, ACCC v AI Constructions and ACCC v CI, as they posed a grave risk of serious harm to the health and safety of consumers, including children.
Moreover, during the relevant period, the promulgation of contravening representations was relatively prolific and effected through diverse media, including websites, video recordings and an electronic book.
While there was no evidence of actual injury, illness or harm to any person, the serious risks associated with respondents’ conduct, including to children, required the imposition of penalties sufficiently substantial to deter the respondents from any repetition and to deter other persons from similar contraventions.
Mr Schianetz and Ms Price are or were, between them, directors and remain owners of almost all of the issued shares in the corporate respondents. The contraventions plainly arose out of the conduct of senior management of the corporate respondents. It is also clear that the corporate respondents did not, at the relevant time, have a culture conducive to compliance with the Trade Practices Act. No compliance program was in place. Neither Mr Schianetz or Ms Price had undertaken any trade practices compliance training, and the respondents’ contravening conduct occurred over the course of almost a year after the ACCC had forwarded to Mr Schianetz (which was subsequently provided to the ninth respondent) a copy of Finkelstein J’s orders in ACCC v Allergy Pathway Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 960 (“ACCC v Allergy Pathway”), a case involving misleading representations in relation to allergy diagnosis and treatment with similar facts to the present case.
There were, however, a number of factors in mitigation. The respondents had not previously been found to have contravened Part V of the Trade Practices Act. They co‑operated with the ACCC, acknowledged liability, expressed regret and undertook not to repeat the contraventions. According to the parties’ joint submissions, “The Respondents regret the contravening conduct and have no intention of repeating it”. The respondents’ co‑operation avoided the need for complex and lengthy litigation.
It is also necessary to consider the respondents’ capacity to pay. The penalty should not be oppressive, but equally, should not represent a mere price of doing business. The penalties proposed by the parties are towards the low end of the range, given the seriousness of the contraventions.
The respondents’ generation of over $3 million in revenue for their “allergy treatments” of over 1,500 patients prior to the period of the contraventions may have suggested a relatively large scale of business and a high level of profit and prosperity, thus requiring higher pecuniary penalties. The length of time in which the $3 million in revenue was generated and the profit component were, however, unspecified. Nor was there evidence of the revenue or net profit produced by the treatments or the number of patients treated during the period of contravention. The statutory declarations and financial statements filed by Mr Schianetz and Ms Price indicated, and the investigations of the ACCC confirmed, that the respondents’ financial circumstances were modest and the scale of the business small.
In light of all the above circumstances, I was satisfied that the total penalty of $185,000.00 was proportionate to the entirety of the respondents’ contravening conduct, and that the penalties of $125,000.00 for each corporate respondent and $30,000.00 for each individual respondent satisfied considerations of parity.
The individual respondents almost wholly owned the corporate respondents and also controlled them. An aggregate penalty of $185,000.00 was, in my view, sufficient to deter the individual respondents from like future contraventions without being oppressive, and to achieve general deterrence.
The pecuniary penalties proposed by consent were therefore, in my opinion, appropriate.
CONCLUSION
I was satisfied that the declarations and orders should be made and the undertakings accepted in the terms proposed.
I certify that the preceding seventy-three (73) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dodds-Streeton. Associate:
Dated: 30 May 2011
18