Peterson v Merck Sharpe & Dohme (Aust) Pty Ltd

Peterson sued Merck Sharpe & Dohme (Aust) Pty Ltd, alleging that the defendant's prescription medicine, intended for inflammation relief, caused his cardiovascular disease. The dispute involved whether the manufacturers knew or should have known about the medicine's tendency to cause such side effects, whether they owed a duty of care to consumers, and if they breached this duty by not withdrawing the product from the market or providing adequate warnings. The court had to decide whether the state of scientific uncertainty regarding the side effects absolved the manufacturers of responsibility and whether the manufacturers' actions constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under trade practices law.

The legal issues included whether the manufacturers' duty of care required the withdrawal of the medicine from the market, the adequacy of warnings provided to healthcare professionals and the public, and the effectiveness of the "Product Information" amendment. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the manufacturers' sales representatives' claims about the medicine's safety were justified, and whether these claims, coupled with the failure to warn, constituted a breach of duty. The court also examined whether the corporation's conduct misled Peterson's doctor, potentially influencing his decision to prescribe the medicine.

The court found that Merck Sharpe & Dohme breached their duty of care by not withdrawing the medicine from the market or adequately warning healthcare professionals and the public about the cardiovascular risks. The court concluded that the manufacturers should have acted upon the clinical trial's signal of cardiovascular risk and provided sufficient warnings. Despite the state of scientific uncertainty, the court held that the manufacturers should have undertaken further research and taken precautionary measures. The court also found that the manufacturers' claims of the medicine's safety were misleading, as they were not supported by the available evidence.

The final orders required the parties to exchange and file with the court their proposed orders reflecting the court’s determination of the claims and any other orders, including those regarding costs, with written notice to be provided to the other parties at least seven days before the listing date for making such orders. The proceeding was to be listed for the making of orders on a date to be fixed, not before 6 April 2010.