ss. 52, 75 AD. Alleged misleading or deceptive conduct, liability for defective goods causing injuries—loss by injured individual
21 January 2000: Proceedings were instituted in the Federal Court, Melbourne, initially under the representative action and product liability provisions of the Trade Practices Act. The ACCC sought compensation for a consumer who had allegedly developed a serious form of latex (rubber) allergy through the frequent and consistent use of PDL’s Ansell brand of household rubber gloves.
March to June 2001: A comprehensive national survey by ACCC staff found some styles of Ansell’s household use rubber gloves were still for sale in retail outlets without the agreed warning.
18 June 2001: The Federal Court granted leave for the ACCC to amend its current application and amended statement of claim to include action under the misleading or deceptive provision of the Act.
In late December 2002 the consumer on whose behalf the ACCC had taken representative action under the product liability provision of the Act accepted settlement of her compensation claim with PDL. The ACCC action under s. 52 of the Act proceeded.
4 February 2004: The Federal Court accepted undertakings from Ansell to stop supplying its household use natural rubber latex gloves in Australia for a period of three years unless the packaging clearly displayed the risk of latex allergy.
While Ansell began labelling its household gloves with a warning about latex in late 1998, the ACCC nevertheless held the view that it ought to have warned consumers from at least 1995, if not earlier.
The proceedings were discontinued by consent of the parties.
