George Weston Foods Ltd v Goodman Fielder Ltd

In the Federal Court of Australia, George Weston Foods Limited (the Applicant) brought an action against Goodman Fielder Limited (the Respondent) regarding an alleged misleading representation concerning the dietary fibre content of the Respondent’s “Wonder White” bread. The Applicant sought urgent interlocutory orders to restrain the Respondent from continuing the alleged misleading conduct. However, the matter was expedited and the trial commenced on 3 November 2000. The Applicant claimed that the Respondent’s packaging for “Wonder White” contained a misleading representation that the bread had twice the fibre content of regular white bread.

The primary legal issue was whether the Respondent’s packaging for “Wonder White” contained a misleading representation that the bread had twice the fibre content of regular white bread. The Applicant argued that the Respondent’s packaging contained a misleading representation by stating that the bread had twice the fibre content of regular white bread, which was not substantiated. The Respondent contended that the representation was not misleading because the fibre content of the bread was accurately described in the packaging, and the comparison was to regular white bread as defined in Food Australia (June 1996).

The court held that the representation on the packaging did not mislead or deceive consumers regarding the fibre content of the bread. The court found that the representation was a comparison to regular white bread, which was defined in Food Australia (June 1996), and that the fibre content of the bread was accurately described in the packaging. The court further held that the representation was not misleading because it was not presented in a way that would cause a consumer to believe that the bread had twice the fibre content of all regular white bread, but rather that it had twice the fibre content of regular white bread as defined in Food Australia (June 1996).

The application was dismissed and the Applicant was ordered to pay the Respondent’s costs.