Tomanovic & Anor v One Australia Pty Limited & Anor

The applicants, Tomanovic and another, sought to restrain the respondents, One Australia Pty Limited and another, from publishing certain material. The dispute concerned allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct in contravention of the *Australian Consumer Law* (ACL), specifically in relation to representations made about the efficacy of a product. The matter came before the Full Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the Full Federal Court were whether the representations made by the respondents concerning the product's effectiveness constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under section 18 of the ACL, and if so, whether the applicants were entitled to injunctive relief to prevent further publication of these representations. The court also considered the nature of the evidence required to establish such contraventions and the appropriate threshold for granting an interlocutory injunction.

The court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the representations made by the respondents and the likely effect of those representations on a reasonable consumer. Bell and Gageler JJ applied the established principles for assessing misleading or deceptive conduct, which require considering the overall impression created by the representations. They found that the evidence presented by the applicants was insufficient to establish a strong prima facie case of contravention of section 18 of the ACL, particularly in relation to the scientific or medical claims made. The court emphasised that mere puffery or unsubstantiated claims, while potentially undesirable, do not automatically amount to misleading or deceptive conduct without sufficient evidence of their falsity or the likelihood of deception.

Consequently, the Full Federal Court dismissed the applicants' appeal and affirmed the primary judge's decision to refuse the interlocutory injunction.