Unilever Australia Ltd v Goodman Fielder Consumer Foods Pty Ltd

Unilever Australia Ltd commenced proceedings against Goodman Fielder Consumer Foods Pty Ltd, alleging that the latter had breached ss 52 and 53(a) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) by making false or misleading representations about the health benefits of a new product, Logicol, and by engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to the same product. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, with Justice Sackville presiding over the expedited final hearing, which focused on primary liability and related relief. The primary dispute centred on whether Goodman Fielder's marketing and advertising of Logicol, a table spread containing plant sterols, falsely implied that it provided cardiovascular health benefits, particularly by lowering LDL cholesterol levels, when such benefits were not scientifically substantiated.

The court had to decide if Goodman Fielder had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct as defined by sections 52 and 53(a) of the Trade Practices Act. This involved examining whether the representations made by Goodman Fielder were false or misleading in a material sense, and if the conduct was misleading or deceptive in the context of trade or commerce. The court also needed to consider the appropriate form of relief, including whether declaratory relief was necessary and if an injunction should be granted. The arguments concerning pecuniary relief, such as damages, were reserved for a later stage of the proceedings.

Justice Sackville found that Goodman Fielder had indeed engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by making scientifically unsubstantiated claims about the cardiovascular benefits of Logicol. The court held that the representations made by Goodman Fielder were misleading in a material sense, particularly concerning the degree to which LDL cholesterol levels could be reduced by consuming the product. The court concluded that an injunction was unnecessary as Goodman Fielder had already ceased using the contentious logo and marketing claims. However, the court granted a declaration that Goodman Fielder's conduct had breached the Act. Consequently, the application for injunctive relief was dismissed, and the court issued a declaration as requested by Unilever.