DATE DOWNLOADED: Mon Dec 18 02:45:05 2023

SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline

Citations:
Please note: citations are provided as a general guideline. Users should consult their preferred
citation format's style manual for proper citation formatting.

Bluebook 21st ed.

Jane Stapleton, Product Liability: Comparing Australia with the EU and US, 28 INT'l
BUS. LAW. 195 (2000).

ALWD 7th ed.

Jane Stapleton, Product Liability: Comparing Australia with the EU and US, 28 Int'l
Bus. Law. 195 (2000).

APA 7th ed.

Stapleton, Jane. (2000). Product liability: comparing australia with the eu and us.
International Business Lawyer, 28(5), 195-202.

Chicago 17th ed.

Jane Stapleton, "Product Liability: Comparing Australia with the EU and US,"
International Business Lawyer 28, no. 5 (May, 2000): 195-202

McGill Guide 9th ed.

Jane Stapleton, "Product Liability: Comparing Australia with the EU and US" (2000)
28:5 Int'l Bus Law 195.

AGLC 4th ed.

Jane Stapleton, 'Product Liability: Comparing Australia with the EU and US' (2000)
28(5) International Business Lawyer 195

MLA 9th ed.

Stapleton, Jane. "Product Liability: Comparing Australia with the EU and US."
International Business Lawyer, vol. 28, no. 5, May, 2000, pp. 195-202. HeinOnline.

OSCOLA 4th ed.

Jane Stapleton, 'Product Liability: Comparing Australia with the EU and US' (2000) 28
Int'l Bus Law 195 Please note: citations are provided as a general
guideline. Users should consult their preferred citation format's style manual for
proper citation formatting.

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and
Conditions of the license agreement available at
https://heinonline.org/HOL/License
-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.
-- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your license, please use:
Copyright Information
ProfessorStapleton examines
product liability laws in
Australia,focusing onfour
Federallaws in particular.
The Australian legal system is a descendant of the
legal system of the UK. As such, its laws are found
either within the judge-made common law or
within statute. The two most important common
law causes of action in the product liability field
are that for the tort of negligence' and that for
breach of a contractual term.' (Typically, the term
allegedly breached is a warranty which has been
implied into the arrangement by statute (see below):
such claims might therefore, in one sense, be
regarded as statutory rather than common law
claims.)
In Australia, the common law is administered by
State courts. The appeal structure from these courts
is, however, a unified system culminating in an
appeal to the High Court of Australia. This
arrangement, like that in Canada, produces a
uniform common law throughout the federation of
Australia. This contrasts sharply with the
constitutional arrangements in the US. In the US,
the common law is a matter for each State to
determine and there is typically no appeal beyond
the Supreme Court of the relevant State, even on
matters relating to the constitutional validity of
State legislation: a matter of considerable
importance given the recent challenges to the
validity of product liability reform statutes.
The US Supreme Court does not, in general, deal
with the common law except in certain interstitial
pockets of jurisdiction such as the admiralty
International Business Lawyer May2000
A
jurisdiction. At present, there is no parallel in the
European Union to the Australian and Canadian
phenomenon of a unified private law.
Under the Federal Constitution of Australia, an
individual State may enact legislation across a wide
range of subject-matters including areas of
relevance to product liability such as the sale of
goods. Statutory sales warranties have been enacted
in all jurisdictions under which commercial
suppliers of goods owe strict obligations to the party
they supply (ie to their privity partner) that the
goods are fit for the purpose they were bought and
are of merchantable quality. Buyers may recover
damages in relation to the economic loss and/or
physical loss they suffer from breach of such a
warranty.
In relation to the balance they strike between
consumer and business interests, the Australian legal
doctrines under the common law and State sales
warranties above are not significanty different from
their namesake doctrines in the UK, Canada, New
Zealand, Ireland and so on.
There are, however, special doctrines relevant to
products in the Australian system. These exist at the
national level in Federal legislation. Under the
Constitution of Australia, the Federal legislature
may enact legislation across a range of subject-
matters of relevance to product liability such as
interstate trade and commerce and foreign, trading
or financial corporations, etc. Pursuant to these
powers, the Federal legislature has enacted four laws
of particular importance in the product liability
context.
 v; 5 r . ' - - : ,.
Trade Practices Act 1974, Part V, s 52'
Section 52 was enacted by the Federal Parliament in
1974 and subsequently mirrored by State 'fair
trading' legislation. It is one of the most strikingly
open-ended statutory provisions in the common law
world and provides that: 'a corporation shall not, in
trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is
misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or
deceive'.
At its very least, the provision duplicates liability
which would exist anyway, either under tort rules
against negligent misstatement or contract rules
against misrepresentation. Indeed, it is typically
appended as an additional claim whenever either of
those two conventional claims is made. While the
case law on section 52 is voluminous, understandably
given its remarkable width, not many cases have
concerned the liability of commercial suppliers of
products liability for injuries caused by the condition
of those products. Those cases that have done so
centre on this area of duplication so that until now,
section 52 has acted more as a simplified
rationalisation of traditional rules than as the
engine by which corporations are exposed to liability
in new situations. In particular, there does not yet
seem to have been any reported section 52 cases
establishing liability in a product case where
liability would not also have been arguable under
either traditional negligence or warranty doctrines.
What is left unclear is how far courts might be
prepared to apply section 52 beyond these areas.
It is settled, for example, that carelessness is riot a
requirement of establishing breach of section 52
(in contrast to the tort of negligence) and there is a
strong possibility that conduct falling short of a
misrepresentation may be caught by the provision
(in contrast to contract law).' It is noteworthy that
the section does not require proof that anyone was
actually misled or deceived by the conduct, so it has
the potential to create a whole new vista of product
liability: a genus which shall be referred to as
'victimless product liability'. Finally, the liability in
section 52 is, in effect, non excludable.
Recently, in other contexts, some Australian
courts have warmly embraced the notion of
unconscionability. This highlights the explosive
potential of section 52 to extend the liability of
corporations.
Two aspects of section 52 are of even more
immediate importance in the product context.
(I) First, there is the procedural attraction of a
section 52 claim. Because section 52 is a Federal
provision, an allegation of its breach allows the
claimant access, not only to the Federal Court
system (which is often attractive for certain
tactical reasons), but also thereby to the class
action vehicle allowed for by section 35A of the
Federal Courts Act. This vehicle is far more
sophisticated than the representative action
procedures typically found in the State courts.
(2) Secondly, organisations purporting to represent
consumers may make application under the
Trade Practices Act for a declaration that
conduct of the defendant contravened section 52.
This may have important indirect effects on later
product claims against that defendant. For
example, in Tobacco Institute ofAustralia Ltd v
Aust Fed Of Consumer OrganisationsInc (1993)
the Full Federal Court granted such a
declaration in regard to an advertisement placed
in national newspapers by the defendant tobacco
industry lobby group, the clear meaning of
which advertisement was that cigarette smoke
was not injurious to the health of non-smokers.
The implications of this result for later litigation
against tobacco manufacturers and suppliers are
clearly significant.
Trade Practices Act 1974, Part V,
Div 2 and Div 2A
The Trade Practices Act imposes on manufacturing
corporations the well known express and implied
sales warranties (in Part V, Div 2) in favour of the
party who bought from that manufacturer (the
privity partner).
But the Trade Practices Act also imposes (in Part
V, Div 2A') on manufacturing corporations express
and implied sales warranties for the benefit of any
party down the chain of distribution and supply to
whom they were supplied (and, in the case of the
warranty of merchantable quality, anyone deriving
title through that supplied person). This 'aclassical'
statutory warranty between a product supplier and a
non-privy buyer/title acquirer is the equivalent of
the aclassical warranties developed by common law
8
judges in the US from the early 1900s onwards.
Like the Directive, the item must be 'goods of a kind
ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or
household use or consumption' but (as with the State
sales warranties) damages are not limited to
personal injuries and property loss, as they are under
the Directive and Part VA, but include pure
economic loss such as the depreciated value of, or
physical damage to the defective product itself.
International Business Lawyer May2000
A major limitation on Div 2A is that mere " Section 75AE provides for compensation to be
bystanders, injured by products, cannot use it. It paid where loss is suffered by a person other than
would not, for example, provide a cause of action to the person killed or injured, as a consequence of
victims of a new thalidomide-type disaster. that other person's death or injury. But
compensation is limited to cases where the loss
Div 2A has major advantages, however. It extends
does not come about because of a business
to economic loss and the standards it applies to
relationship (and professional and employment
product suppliers are genuinely strict, there is no
relationships fall within the statutory definition
equivalent of a development risk defence to Div 2A:
of a 'business relationship').
it is no answer to a Div 2A claim that the state of
* Where the defective product damages other
scientific knowledge did not allow the defect to be
property (including real property) which is of a
discovered.' Given these advantages over, say, claims
kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or
in negligence, it is a real puzzle why so very few Div
household use, a person who suffers loss as a result
2A claims have surfaced in Australian law reports.
has a claim for compensation under Part VA, even
There is a strong parallel here with the experience
if he was only a user orprospective user of that
in Europe with the Directive. Does the absence of
property.
reported claims indicate:
" Part VA does not apply to a loss in respect of
* a low usage of the legal rule by practitioners (if
which a claim has or could be made under
so, why the lack of use)?
workers' compensation legislation (compare the
* or does it mask a high usage which, however, does
'sole remedy' regime which operates widely in the
not result in court proceedings because of the
US).
clarity and efficiency of the rule in resolving
" The regulatory body, the Australian Competition
disputes?
and Consumer Commission (ACCC), may
Anecdotally, this author's impression is the former:
commence a Part VA liability claim on behalf of
namely, an apparently inexplicable under-use of the
one or more persons with their consent. (The
Div 2A provisions by plaintiffs' lawyers. Given that
ACCC may also do so for Part V liabilities.)
Div 2A has been in existence for more than two
Part VA only applies to products supplied after 9 July
decades, this is a striking phenomenon but one that
1992. It is unclear how many claims using Part VA
may well change with the increasing sophistication
have since been received by product suppliers in
of Australian plaintiffs' lawyers.
Australia. Moreover, it is not even possible to
determine how many of these claims were laterfiled
Trade Practices Act 1974, Part VA within the court system. The only reliable data
concerns reporteddecisions of courts. So far there
After a complex reform process" prompted, in part,
have been only three of these involving Part VA:
by the emergence of the European Directive on
* AustralianCompetition and Consumer Commission
product liability in 1985," a new Part was inserted
v Glendale Chemical ProductsPty Ltd (t998)."
in the Federal Trade Practices Act in 1992 to
This is the only reported ease where liability
provide, within areas of Federal constitutional
under Part VA has been imposed. It was a 'failure
competence, the sort of coverage created by the
to warn' case concerning caustic soda. The case
Directive. 2 As with the Directive that it closely
combined Trade Practices Act proceedings
parallels, this Part VA adds a new liability rather
brought by the ACCC in the Federal Court on
than subsuming existing heads of liability." The
behalf of the victim seeking damages, declaration
wording of its key provisions in relation to defect
and injunction, with State proceedings for
and the development risk defence are equivalent to
negligence brought by the victim. The judgment
that in the Directive but Part VA differs from the
includes important construction of key terms:
Directive in the following principal ways:
'defect'; and 'manufactured' - that a supplier who
It is confined within the legislative powers
repackaged a bulk substance into labelled items
granted to the Federal legislature by the
had 'manufactured' it.
Constitution. The principal limitation is that it
* Lopez v Star World EnterprisesPty (1999). " This
only imposes liability on corporations.' But as
5 was a Federal class action brought on behalf of a
Jocelyn Kellam has noted : this limitation has not
class of over 800 in relation to food poisoning
proved significant because most business activity
from pork rolls. Part VA was one of the many
in Australia involving the manufacture of
causes of action pleaded but the parties agreed a
products is carried on by corporations.

International Business Lawyer May2000

 settlement so the provisions were not construed.
Ryan v Great Lakes Council (1999).1 This was
also a Federal class action. It involved a class of
444 claims in relation to food poisoning from
oysters. The claim was pleaded in many causes of
action. It succeeded in negligence and some heads
of liability under Part V,Div 2A (aclassical
warranty), but failed in its claims based on section
52, Part V, Div 2 (classical warranty) and Part VA.
The latter aspect of the case is important in the
context of the Directive because the Court
interpreted the development risk defence in such
a way that it defeated the Part VA claim."
Specifically, the Court held:
's75AK(l)(c) provides a defence to an action..
"if it is established that ... the state of
scientific or technical knowledge at the time
when they were supplied by their actual
manufacturer was not such as to enable that
defect to be discovered". The paragraph
obviously intends the defence be unavailable if
the goods were supplied notwithstanding the
possibility of discovery of the defect.
Conversely, the defence is available if the defect
was not capable of discovery before supply. In
the present case, discovery and supply were
mutually exclusive; the only test that would
reveal the defect would destroy the goods.
Accordingly,it seems to me the defence applies
and the s75AD claim fails.' (Emphasis added.)
P_twadiian produ~ct ai
The Australian legal system in practice is very
similar to that in the UK: adversarial, common-law
based, etc. But it also has strong similarities with the
legal systems of the major jurisdictions in
Continental Europe. Thus, like those jurisdictions,
and unlike the US, the system bans contingency
fees, ie where the lawyer arranges with the client to
receive a percentage of any damages awarded and to
charge nothing in the case of a loss. However, no-
win no-fee arrangements whereby the lawyer agrees
not to charge if the case is lost but charges his fee
and sometimes a small regulated percentage uplift
of thatfee, are becoming very much more common
in the UK and Australia, especially in the consumer
field. This development, understandably, has
occurred alongside the rise of aggressive and
entrepreneurial legal firms specialising in consmuner
complaints.
Again, like Europe and unlike many US
jurisdictions, the costs rule in Australia is that the
'loser pays' both his own costs and the bulk of those
of the winning side. Yet again, like Europe and
unlike the US, in most Australian jurisdictions juries
are not available for the sort of claims arising out of
defective products. Although they are common in
the two largest jurisdictions, New South Wales and
Victoria, where jury decisions both on content and
quantum are subject to greater scrutiny at the appeal
stage than those of US juries.
Punitive, that is 'exemplary', damages are not
available for claims under the Trade Practices Act."
In other types of product-related claim, punitive
damages are theoretically available but are subject
to very strict rules. The result is that in Australia,
punitive damages have not yet been awarded against
the manufacturer of a defective product."
The quantum of damages awarded in Australian
courts is predictable even in jury cases. This is
because, as in the UK, the heads of allowable
damages claims are well set out in the case law. Even
problematic heads such as that of non-pecuniary
damages, are predictable because courts, including
appellate courts reviewing jury awards, apply
conventional guidelines akin to the Judicial Studies
Board Guidelines22 used by courts in the UK.
In combination, these legal system characteristics
produce, in Australia, an environment much more
akin to that of the UK and Continental Europe than
the US. In the US, the social security system is
relatively rudimentary and there is no equivalent to
the UK National Health Service. This produces a
very strong incentive to sue in order to cover health
bills and lost wages. By contrast, in Australia,
universal health insurance plus significant workers'
compensation coverage defuse much of the impetus
for injured Australians to sue, just as similar state
arrangements in Europe subdue the rate of
claiming.
On the other hand, the plaintiffs' Bar in Australia
has developed rapidly in size and effectiveness over
the past decade.Y Certain Australian law firms are
now well experienced in launching product claims,
typically on a no-win no-fee basis, across a wide
spectrum. They participate in US-based litigation in
relation to product claims and join in global
settlements/bankruptcy proceedings. These firms
specialise in mass torts and it is these multiple
claims which are generating most pressure within
the system, both procedurally and doctrinally. If the
claim is brought in the State courts, the most
common tactic is to use a 'lead case' which
International Business Lawyer May2000
determines liability on which subsequent duplicate
cases rest. This was the form of a number of recent
high-profile product liability cases, for example:
* Claims launched against the Federal Government
and its 'Commonwealth Serum Laboratories' in
relation to the contamination of human growth
hormone with the substance causing Creutzfeldt-
Jakob (mad cow) disease.
° Lead case followed by 41 claims in relation to HIV
infected blood products.'
" Claims in Denzin and others v Nutrasweet and
others." As the judge remarked in his judgment
for the defendants, this 'litigation was the longest
and most complex product liability litigation in
Australian legal history'. The hearing of evidence
took eight months and oral submissions took
a further two months. The litigation involved
nine representative cases selected from a group
of 200.
Since 4 March 1992, class actions have been
explicitly provided for within the Federal Court
system. Though exact figures are unavailable, this
author has so far identified more than 30 product-
related cases which have been filed under this
procedure. Many of these class actions are simple
food poisoning cases but other important large
actions have involved:
" sophisticated products such as long-haul trucks,
pacemaker leads, breast implants, and surgical
devices;
" complex issues such as tobacco claims (both
passive smoking and direct user-claims) and
pesticide contamination; and
" huge classes of claimants such as those claiming
in relation to the economic losses associated with
the contamination of the Sydney drinking water
supply in 1998 and the 1998 interruption of the
Victorian gas supply.
Most such cases do not reach judgment and there is
an important question as to whether the class action
is being used tactically, particularly in the sort of
complex product cases (pharmaceuticals, etc) where
it has been notoriously difficult for an individual
plaintiff to secure a favourable judgment, or even an
out-of-court settlement.
Finally, Part VA does not seem to have had any
discernible impact one way or the other on the
following features of the product liability scene in
Australia:
• rate of product claims/court filings/reported
cases;
* availability of insurance;
* R&D;
International Business Lawyer May2000
" quality control, record-keeping and product recall
strategies;
" content of advertising and product warnings.
Data
There has been no reliable collection of data
concerning product liability raw claims or even those
which become courtfilings in any Australian or
European jurisdiction, either before or after the
introduction of Part VA/the Directive. There is
more scope for tracking reportedcase law where
there are computer search facilities," but in no
jurisdiction will even this pick up all product-related
claims because (1) not all court proceedings are
reported and/or (2) there is no reliable keyword
which will pick up all product liability cases.
At best, there is the anecdotal impression that
neither Part VA of the Australian Trade Practices
Act nor the European Directive has increased the
low rate of product claims which existed before the
reform. There is, however, no real sense of the
impact of specific elements of either regime, for
example, the extent to which the limitation cut-off
periods in Part VA/the Directive have barred claims
is unknown. The same applies to the effects of the
financial thresholds/ceilings in the Directive, which
do not have parallels in Part VA. Moreover, given the
low density of claims the collected data will only
have statistical significance if collected across many
jurisdictions.
Recommendation
Proactive rigorous research, rather than post-hoc
anecdotal research, should be conducted into
techniques by which the impact of law reform can
be effectively monitored on an ongoing basis. This
would include data on: claims; filings; judgment
rates; and judgment fates; as well as a databank with
relevant case law from other jurisdictions (eg the
interpretation of the development risk defence in
Ryan v Great Lakes Council is scarcely known
within the EU, even in the English-speaking
jurisdictions). Data collection is particularly
important in an area, such as product liability, where
the density of reported cases is low. The acceleration
of computer record-keeping should facilitate such
research.
Doctrinal reforms
The Australian experience with Part VA mirrors
that with the Directive in the UK and elsewhere
within the EU. Namely, there does not seem to have
been a resultant substantial rise in product claims.
Where consumers have used Part VA/the Directive
it has been in addition to other causes of action
which already existed within each local jurisdiction.
In Australia, this costly problem of multiplicity of
pleadings is exacerbated by relevant causes of action
existing at common law, in State legislation and
Federal legislation.
To some extent, this timidity and under-use may
be due to the vagueness of certain terms.
Recommendation
The Directive might be amended to clarify
particular terms: does 'product' include software?
Is the development risk defence based on
reasonableness? Is 'defect' to be judged by cost-
benefit or some 'consumer expectation' test? Is the
development risk defence available to defendants in
manufacturing error cases?
The US experience suggests Australian and
European reformers and commentators on both
sides of the debate have focused too heavily on the
undiscovered defect cases -where the development
risk defence may be argued. These cases are not
common. Far more troubling to the US system are
the crashworthiness cases which were the central
concern of the Reporters for the Third Restatement:
Products Liability." Although still uncommon in
Australia and the EU, such claims are likely to
increase.
A second recommendation is that the Directive
might be amended to clarify how a court should
proceed when faced with a crashworthiness claim.
The Australian High Court has recently taken a very
pro plaintiff stance on the issue of causation. This
element of any product liability claim is, it must be
acknowledged, something very much of a 'wild card'
for both parties. it is unclear how harmonisation
across Member States of the European Union can
occur while each uses the 'causation' tag to cover,
and indeed mask, different issues relating to
responsibility This recommendation is not advisable.
Access to justice
The past decade has seen a dramatic rise in Australia
of experienced aggressive plaintiffs' firms. They
use the media shrewdly and advertise directly and
indirectly for customers. The dynamic of the no-win
no-fee arrangements, on which much of the work of
such firms proceeds, tends to focus their work on
group actions. Though facilitated in the Australian
Federal Court by special class action rules, there are
still procedural difficulties in group actions at the
State level. Federal legislation allowing the State
regulator and other consumer bodies to launch
proceedings on behalf of consumers seems to have
proved helpful, or at least non-controversial in
practice.
Recommendation
No-win no-fee arrangements (ie conditional fee
arrangements) and class action procedures should be
allowed in all EU jurisdictions. In the light of the
Australian experience, consideration should be given
to the further empowerment of consumer bodies in
relation to initiating product liability claims. E
Notes
I On the Directive and the UK and US products liability
regimes in general, see J Stapleton, ProductLiability
(Butterworths & Northwestern University Press, London
and New York, 1994); Jane Stapleton, 'Products Liability in
the UK: the Myths of Reform' (1999) 34 Texas
InternationalLaw Journal 45.
2 On the general topic of which, the leading texts are: J
Fleming, The Law of Torts in Australia (9th edn, Law Book
Company, Sydney, 1998); R Balkin and J Davis, Law of
Torts (2nd edn, Butterworths, Sydney, 1996); F Trindade
and P Cane, The Law of Torts in Australia (3rd edn Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 1999).
3 On the general topic of which, the leading texts are: J W
Carter, D I Harland, Contract Law in Australia (3rd edn,
Bntterworths, Sydney, 1996); 1 W Greig and J L R Davis,
The Law of Contract (Law Book Co, Sydney, 1987 and 5th
Supplement, 1995).
4 On this and other provisions relating specifically to Federal
product liability in Australia, the leading texts are: Product
Liability in the Asia-Pacific (2nd edn, General Editor J
Kellam, Prospect Media, Sydney, 1999), Chap 1; J Kellam,
A PracticalGuide to Australian ProductLiability (CCH
Australia Limited, Sydney, 1992); Product Liability Law
and Practice(General Editors J Kellam, R Travers and R
Davis, Prospect Media, Sydney, 1996), looseleaf service.
5 On which, see generally: C Lockhart, The Law of
MIisleading or Deceptive Conduct (Butterworths, Sydney,
1998); Misleading or Deceptive Conduct:Issues and Trends
(Editor C Lockhart, Sydney, Federation Press, 1996); D
Healey and A Terry, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct
(Sydney, CCH Australia Ltd, 1991).
6 Tobacco Institute of AustraliaLtd vAust Fed Of Consumer
OrganisationsInc V 2) (1993) 41 FCR 89.
7 Enacted it 1978, extended in 1986.
8 On which see J Stapleton, ProductLiability(Butterworths &
Northwestern University Press, London and New York,
1994), pp 20 et seq; Mlazetti v 4rmour & Co, 155 P 633
(1913).
International Business Lawyer May2000
 9 See, for example, Caruth v Hoffman-La Roche AG, No
G297 of 1991.
10 On which, see J Kellam, ProductLiability in the Asia-
Pacific (Legal Books, 1995), Chap 1.
11 OJ 1985 L 210/29, hereafter 'the Directive'. For earlier
drafts, see OJ 1976 C 241 (first draft); OJ 1979 C 271 (second
draft).
12 In general, see Ian Malkin, 'Product Liability under the
Trade Practices Act and at Common Law' (1998) 6 Torts
Law Journal204; I Malkin and E J Wright, 'Product
Liability under the Trade Practices Act - Adequately
Compensating for Personal Injury?' (1993) 1 Torts Law
Journal63.
13 Compare Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability
(Proposed Final Draft, I April 1997): at its annual meeting
in Washington DC, in May 1997, the American Law
Institute voted to adopt this Restatement subject to
amendments approved at that meeting. See J Stapleton,
'Australian Comments on Restatement (Third) of Torts:
Products Liability' [2000] Issue 5 W4ashburn Law Journal
(forthcoming).
14, See, for example, Ian John Wf'hite v Canberra turniture
Ianuq'cturingPtyLtd[1999]ACTSC 53 (28 May 1999).
15 Kellam op cit (1995).
16 Australian Competitionand Consumrer Comrmisson v
Glendale Chemical ProductsPty Ltd [19981 180 FCA
(27 February 1998); upheld on appeal at [1998 1571 FCA
(10 December 1998).
17 FCA 104 (28 January 1999).
18 FCA 177 (5 March 1999),
19 Compare the decision of the German Federal Supreme
Court in a 1.995 exploding bottle case: [ 19951 NJW 2162;
C Hodges, 'The Case of the Exploding Bottle of Water'
(May 1996) ProductLiability international75.
20 Munchies Management PtyLtd v Belperio (1988) 84 ALR
700 at 713, Marks v GIOAustraliaHoldings Ltd L1998] 158
ALR 333 at para (9].
21 Compare the employer's liability claim in }'lidalco Pty Ltd V
Rabenalt (1988) -lustralian 7brts Reports 80-208, a Victorian
jury trial arising out of exposure to asbestos at Wittenoom
mines. Total damages of A$676,000 of which A$250,000
were exemplary. On appeal, [1989] VR 4.61, a new trial on
the ground of a misdirection concerning exemplary
damages was refused.
22 Guidelinesfor the Assessment of GeneralDamages in
Personalinjury Cases (4th edn, 1998).
23 For an entertaining history of the most high-profile firm,
see M Cannon, That DisreputableFirm . . . the Inside Story
of Slater & Gordon (Melbourne University Press,
Melbourne, 1998).
24 Re 'E vAustralian Red Cross Society (1991) 105 ALR
(Federal case, Trade Practices Act, Part V, Div 2, brought
before the introduction of a class action procedure).
25 [1999] NSWSC 106 (22 February 1999) concerning the
Copper 7 IUD (ittrauterine device).
26 Australia has one of the most outstanding systems in the
world at http://wwv.austlii.edu.au.
27 lames A Henderson Jr and Aaron D TIverski. What Europe,
Japan, and Other Countries Can Learn from the New
American Restatement of Products Liability' (1999) 34
Texas InternationalLaw Journal 1.

International Business Lawyer May2000

 Competition Law of the UK
US$ 275. 1400 pages. 2 Looseleaf Volumes.
Appendices. Glossary. Index. ISBN 1-57823-058-6

Author: SJBerwin & Co. From its foundation in 1982, SJ Berwin & Co recognized the fundamental influence
that Community law and competition policy has on the United Kingdom and international business activity.
Since then, the firm has established a reputation as one of the leading UK practices specializing in Community
law. SJ Berwin was named "Competition Team of the Year" by Legal Business for its role in the
Guinness/GrandMet Merger which involved merger clearance procedures of more than 120 world-wide
jurisdictions and was, at the time, the largest merger in EU history and sixth largest in the world.
Competition Law of the UK consists of two volumes intended as a practitioners' guide for use by
solicitors in UK law firms, lawyers in the EU, USA and elsewhere and by in-house counsel in companies
incorporated both within or outside of the UK. Volume I explains how the new UK competition legislation will
be applied in practice and what companies must do in order to comply with the new legislation. Volume II sets
-ut the text of all UK competition legislation currently in force and all official materials of use in its
interpretation. Both volumes are regularly updated in order to take account of developments in UK competition
law and in its interpretation by the UK enforcement institutions and judicial authorities. Competition Law of the
UK is the most comprehensive book on the topic and is the only looseleaf publication available.

Summary Table of Contents

Chapter 1- Chapter I Prohibition of Anti-Competitive Agreements and Practices.

Chapter 2- Exclusions.
Chapter 3- Exemptions.
Chapter 4- Chapter II Prohibition of Abuse of a Dominant Position.
Chapter 5- Exclusions.
Chapter 6- Pricing.
Chapter 7- Vertical Restraints.
Chapter 8- Intellectual Property.
Chapter 9- Horizontal Co-Operation Agreements.
Chapter 10- Refusal to Supply.
Chapter 11 - Tie-Ins and Full Line Forcing.
Chapter 12 - Transitional Arrangements.
Chapter 13 - Enforcement and Procedure.
Chapter 14 - The Relationship between UK and EU Competition Law
Chapter 15 - Monopolies.
Chapter 16 - Mergers.

For More Information and a Complete Table of Contents

on This and Other Antitrust / Competition Publications
Please Refer to our Website:

http://www.antitrustlaw.com

Furi Pubih ing, I0c.

Excuiv Park One O)i lPlz

International Business Lawyer May2000