NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

British American Tobacco & others v. Department of Health - (19 May 2016)

High Court snuffs tremendous tobacco challenge

Commercial

Tobacco companies launched full scale war against British legislation enabling Article 20(5) of the Tobacco Products Directive, which severely restricts the ability of tobacco companies to advertise their brands on packaging and on the products themselves.

The measures, recently approved, by the British Parliament bring in “standardised packaging” - homogenised, undifferentiated sale of tobacco products. Companies can mention their name and brand of product, but much of the allure of advertising is erased, replaced by health warnings and helplines to quit smoking.

Tobacco arguments against the regulations are severalfold and encompass quite literally the entire proceedings. Beginning with the legality of source of the regulation, issue is raised about treatment of evidence produced by tobacco companies, the proportionality of regulation, competing private and public interest and more - totalling 17 grounds of challenge.

The Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court in London rejected all of the claims for judicial review. The court was of the opinion that the regulations were not disproportionate and achieved a significant public health objective. The tobacco industry was not denied monetisation of its intellectual property; moreover, “private predominantly financial interest of the tobacco industry…balance comes down overwhelmingly in favour of the Regulations”.

Also relied on was a European Court of Justice ruling rejecting a tobacco challenge regarding implantation of EU legislation. The court in that case too had rejected the super-technical challenges and found the Regulation “perfectly valid” under international and European law. Taking a pragmatic approach, the court also noted that the tobacco industry making its profits was resulting in a “health crises of epidemic proportions”, as described by the World Health Organisation, and the clean-up cost would fall on the public itself.

Tags : TOBACCO   UNIFORM PACKAGING   BRANDING  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved