The High Court of Australia and the Marlboro Man: The Battle Over the Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products

In 2012, the High Court of Australia handed down a landmark decision on the plain packaging of tobacco products. This chapter considers the historic ruling in the case of JT International SA v Commonwealth; British American Tobacco Australasia Ltd v Commonwealth. This chapter explores several themes in the decision. First, it highlights the historical work by the High Court of Australia on the role of health regulation, the use of health warnings, and tobacco control. Second, the chapter considers the High Court of Australia's view that intellectual property law promotes the public interest.Third, it explores the High Court of Australia’s analysis of the constitutional law on acquisition of property on just terms. Finally, this chapter contends that the High Court of Australia's ruling on plain packaging of tobacco products will spark an 'Olive Revolution' — and will encourage superior courts and policy-makers to follow suit.

Big tobacco's box fetish: Plain packaging at the High Court

Tobacco, says the World Health Organisation (WHO), is “the only legal consumer product that kills when used exactly as intended by the manufacturer.”

The High Court and the Marlboro Man: The plain packaging decision

The High Court of Australia’s ruling on the plain packaging of tobacco products is one of the great constitutional cases of our age. The ruling will resonate throughout the world - as other countries will undoubtedly seek to emulate Australia’s plain packaging regime.

Cigarettes will kill you: The High Court of Australia and the plain packaging of tobacco products

Tobacco, says the World Health Organization (WHO), is “the only legal consumer product that kills when used exactly as intended by the manufacturer.” With a view to discouraging smoking and giving effect to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the Australian Parliament passed the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 (Cth), in November of that year. The legislation was supported by all the major political parties.

An analytical study revisiting debate on interpretation of Article 38 of the Statute of International Court of Justice

Article 38(1) of the Statute of International Court of Justice (hereinafter ICJ) is today generally seen as a direction to the significant sources of international law, which the world court must consider in resolving disputes; however, the list is not exhaustive nor encompasses all the formal and material sources of the international legal system. Article 38 of the Statute of ICJ was written ninety years ago in a different world, a question is under debate in many states, whether or not sources mentioned in Article 38 of the statute are compatible with needs of 21st century ? In recent decade, many new actors come on the stage which have transformed international law and now it is not only governs relations among states but also covers many International Organizations. Article 38(2) does refer to the other possible sources but does not define them. Moreover, law is a set of rules that citizens must follow to regulate peace and order in society. These laws are binding on both the individual and the state on a domestic and international level. Do states regard this particular rule as a rule of international law? The modern legal system of states is in the form of a specified and well organized set of rules, regulating affairs of different organs of a state. States also need a body of rules for their intercourse with each other. These sets of rules among states are called “International Law.” This article examines international law, its foundation and sources. It considers whether international conventions and treaties can be the only way states can considerably create international law, or there is a need for clarity about the sources of international law. Article is divided into two parts, the first one deals with sources of international law discussed in Article 38 of the statute of International Court of Justice whereas the second one discusses the material and formal sources of law, which still need reorganization as sources of law.

Australian court holds Google is responsible for linking to defamatory website

The South Australian Supreme Court this week found that Google is legally responsible when its search results link to defamatory content on the web. In this long-running case, Dr Janice Duffy has been trying for more than six years to clear her name and remove links to defamatory material when people search for her using Google. The main culprit is the US based website Ripoff Reports, where people have posted negative reviews of Dr Duffy. Under United States law, defamation is very hard to prove, and US websites are not liable for comments made by their users. Since it was not possible to get harmful or abusive comments removed from the source, Dr Duffy instead asked Google to remove the links from its search results. Google removed some of these links, but only from its Australian domain (google.com.au), and it left many of them active. This latest court decision is a big win for Dr Duffy. The court found that once Google was alerted to the defamatory material, it was then under an obligation to act to censor its search results and prevent further harm to Dr Duffy’s reputation.

From court to QCAT, or not

In Sutton v Tang [2015] QDC 191 Reid DCJ considered the circumstances that may be relevant to the exercise of the discretion to order a transfer of a proceeding to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the tribunal) under s53 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (the Act).

Can a court protect an ex-addict from themselves?

In Hewitt v Bayntum & Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2015] QSC 250 the court was asked to sanction a compromise of a proceeding by a plaintiff who, though a recovering drug addict, was able to give instructions and understand the proposed compromise.

Lawyers linked to litigation funding face court censure: Bolitho v Banksia Securities Limited (No.4) [2014] VSC 582

In Bolitho v Banksia Securities Limited (No 4) [2014] VSC 582 the Supreme Court of Victoria concluded that the proper administration of justice, including the appearance of justice, required that the lawyers representing the plaintiff in the group proceeding should be restrained from continuing to act for the plaintiff. This Victorian case illustrates how courts are likely to respond when lawyers attempt to circumvent the prohibition on contingency fees through litigation funding in which they have a financial interest.

Social Influence and Blood Donation: Cultural Differences Between Scotland and Australia

People can be motivated to carryout behaviours which contribute to improvement of quality of life for reasons driven by cultural norms. There is a common perception that people within a cultural cluster, particularly one with a common language such as English, will exhibit similar consumer behaviours. However there is an emerging field of research investigating intra-cultural differences in marketing that challenges this perception. In particular, the role of peers and norms as drivers of altruistic behaviours that benefit society may differ between these countries. Altruism is an important motivation for pro-social behaviours such as blood donation, water conservation and peer counselling for health problems. Understanding the social influences for these behaviours assists marketers to develop programs that meet the needs of donors and potential donors. An ongoing foundation of altruistic consumers is essential for delivering services that improve quality of life for people. Without blood donors, there would be no blood products for cancer sufferers or accident victims, without a sufficient water supply the quality of life for residents would be compromised and without breastfeeding peer counselling, new mothers and their babies would have reduced quality of life. This chapter reports the findings of two online surveys with Scottish and Australian blood donors and demonstrates differences in the way social norms influence donation behaviour, and importantly different impacts of cultural factors in the two populations.

Portrait of Sassona "Sony" Baron nee Meyerhof.

1994 photo of Sassona (Sony) Meyerhof (1952-) married Baron;

Interior of Aenny Catzenstein's apartment; Onslo Court (?), London Architecture Residences Interior

Aenny Catzenstein is seen sitting on a sofa in the left corner of the picture

Interior of Aenny Catzenstein's apartment; Onslo Court (?), London Architecture Residences Interior

Digital Image