Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited v SC Johnson and Son Pty Limited

Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited (Reckitt) filed proceedings against SC Johnson and Son Pty Limited (SC Johnson) alleging that SC Johnson’s Clean & Pure product was being marketed with false or misleading claims that it could eliminate odour-causing bacteria in the air, thereby contravening sections 52 and 53 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TP Act). The court was required to determine whether SC Johnson’s claims about Clean & Pure were misleading and if they constituted a contravention of the TP Act. The court evaluated the scientific evidence presented by both parties, including expert testimonies from microbiologists, to assess the validity of SC Johnson's claims.

The court examined the expert testimonies of Drs Neilan, Priscott, Stetzenbach, Crank, and Wynn-Hatton, considering their qualifications, the persuasiveness of their arguments, and the scientific basis of their conclusions. Drs Priscott and Stetzenbach, who supported SC Johnson's position, were found to have a marginally stronger case than Dr Neilan, who provided evidence for Reckitt. Dr Crank's criticisms of Dr Wynn-Hatton's evidence, particularly regarding the efficacy of TEG in eliminating airborne bacteria and odour-causing chemicals, were considered significant. The court concluded that SC Johnson's claims about Clean & Pure were not misleading and did not contravene the TP Act.

Accordingly, the court dismissed Reckitt’s proceedings and ordered Reckitt to pay SC Johnson’s costs. The reasons for judgment were to be kept confidential for seven days to allow the parties to make submissions on any aspects claimed to be confidential.