Brock Beauty Inc

Brock Beauty Inc and Brock Beauty Inc (Australia) Pty Ltd (collectively, "Brock Beauty") sought interlocutory injunctive relief against the respondent, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ("ACCC"). The dispute concerned allegations that Brock Beauty had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of the *Australian Consumer Law* (ACL) by making unsubstantiated claims about the efficacy of its "Wen" hair care products. The ACCC had commenced proceedings against Brock Beauty in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether there was a serious question to be tried regarding Brock Beauty's alleged contraventions of the ACL, specifically concerning representations made about the products' ability to promote hair growth and reduce hair loss. The Court was required to consider whether the balance of convenience favoured granting interlocutory injunctions to restrain Brock Beauty from continuing to make such representations pending the final determination of the proceedings.

Justice Wilson considered the evidence presented by both parties, including expert reports and consumer testimonials. The Court applied the principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunctions, which require the applicant to demonstrate a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favours the grant of relief. The Court found that there was a sufficient evidentiary basis to establish a serious question to be tried concerning the alleged misleading representations. The Court also considered the potential harm to consumers and the public interest in preventing misleading advertising, weighing this against the potential prejudice to Brock Beauty if the injunctions were granted.

The Court ultimately granted the interlocutory injunctions sought by the ACCC, restraining Brock Beauty from making certain representations about its "Wen" hair care products until the final determination of the proceedings. The Court found that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of injunctive relief to protect consumers from potentially misleading advertising.