Philip Morris (Australia) Ltd v Nixon

Philip Morris (Australia) Ltd brought a case against Nixon and others, seeking to have a class action dismissed on various grounds. The primary dispute involved the respondents' alleged disregard for the health and safety of class members, with claims spanning pre- and post-October 1974 conduct, the date of the Trade Practices Act commencement. The legal issues before the court encompassed the accrued jurisdiction question, the hypothetical nature of the issues, and compliance with Section 33C(1)(a) of the Federal Court Act. The court was required to determine whether the claims were within its jurisdiction and whether they could be pursued as a class action.

The court's reasoning centred on the accrued jurisdiction question, acknowledging that the conduct alleged prior to the Trade Practices Act's commencement could still form part of a cause of action if related to post-1974 conduct. The court held that claims based on pre-1974 conduct could be considered within its jurisdiction if the class was limited to those who smoked after 1 October 1974. The court also dismissed the argument that the issues were hypothetical, finding that the determination of one claim would necessitate elements of another, thereby connecting the claims sufficiently. The court further clarified that the proceedings did not contravene Section 33C(1)(a) of the Federal Court Act.

In its outcome, the court granted leave to appeal against certain orders made by the primary judge, setting aside specific orders made on both 13 August 1999 and 1 September 1999. The court directed that the claims should no longer proceed as a class action and mandated individual applications and statements of claim from each applicant. It also ruled that the respondents were to pay costs associated with the application for leave to appeal and the appeals themselves.