You are here: Home > Blog

Philip Morris ordered to pay Australia for costs of defending tobacco plain packaging investment challenge

Thursday 27 July, 2017
by Suzanne Zhou

Plain tobacco packaging in Australia. Source: Shutterstock
Plain tobacco packaging in Australia. Source: Shutterstock


On 13 July 2017, the tribunal constituted to hear Philip Morris Asia Ltd’s (PMA) investment treaty challenge against Australia’s tobacco plain packaging laws ordered PMA to reimburse Australia for costs involved in defending the case.

The dispute, brought by PMA under the 1993 Hong Kong – Australia bilateral investment treaty, was decided in favour of Australia in 2015. In its Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, released in May 2016, the tribunal concluded that it was precluded from exercising jurisdiction over the dispute. It found that:

‘the initiation of this arbitration constitutes an abuse of rights, as the corporate restructuring by which the Claimant acquired the Australian subsidiaries occurred at a time when there was a reasonable prospect that the dispute would materialise and as it was carried out for the principal, if not sole, purpose of gaining Treaty protection.’

The Tribunal's Final Award Regarding Costs considers and dismisses PMA’s argument that it should not pay Australia and the Tribunal’s costs.

‘Loser pays’ rule should apply

The default rule under the relevant procedural rules is that the ‘loser’ pays the costs of the dispute, including the legal costs of the other party and the Tribunal’s expenses. The Tribunal may decide to otherwise apportion the costs if it is ‘reasonable’ to do so.

PMA had argued that it was “not correct or appropriate to label one party the ‘winner’ and one party the ‘loser’”, because PMA had prevailed on two arguments and lost on two arguments.

The Tribunal disagreed, finding that the ‘loser’ of an investment dispute was the party that had been unsuccessful, assessed in light of the overall outcome of the case. Here, PMA’s claim had been dismissed and it had been found to have abused its rights. The Tribunal emphasised that ‘a respondent State that faces an abuse of right should, in principle, not be burdened with the costs of defending itself against such a claim.’

The Tribunal reduced the amount that would otherwise have been payable by PMA by a percentage that reflected the time and cost spent on one jurisdictional objection pursued by Australia that was ultimately not successful.

Australia’s costs claim was reasonable

The Tribunal found that Australia had claimed a reasonable amount of costs, and rejected PMA’s argument that the figure Australia was claiming was too high. The Tribunal took into account the complexity and length of the dispute, and the fact that it was Australia’s first investment arbitration, which meant that Australia had had to hire external counsel and develop in-house capacity and procedures from scratch.

The Tribunal also emphasised that Australia’s expenditure was appropriate given the significance of the case:

“In making this assessment, the Tribunal also takes into consideration the significant stakes involved in this dispute in respect of Australia’s economic, legal and political framework, and in particular the relevance of the outcome in respect of Australia’s policies in matters of public health.”

The Tribunal issued a redacted costs award ordering PMA to pay an undisclosed sum to Australia, and awarding interest of 1.5% (the Reserve Bank of Australia’s cash rate) on the total sum.

Status of disputes

The decision brings the investment proceedings against Australia’s plain packaging laws, which were initiated in 2011, to a close. A constitutional challenge was dismissed in 2012, and a WTO panel decision is still pending.

Cross posted from the McCabe Centre Knowledge Hub site

Recent Posts

Alumni in the Spotlight: Caroline

Friday 12 April 2019
Alumni in the Spotlight showcases one of our alumni; their work and their impact in advancing law to fight cancer. Introducing Caroline, a lecturer at Kenyatta University School of Law and a Member of the Kenya Tobacco Control Board.

Leaving no one behind: using law to achieve universal health coverage

Friday 5 April 2019
World Health Day is marked annually on 7 April and this year the theme is Universal Health Coverage (UHC), highlighting the urgent need for all people, including those affected by cancer, to have access to the quality health services they need, when and where they need them, without financial hardship.

Perspectives from Melbourne Law School interns

Thursday 28 March 2019
Our latest interns, Melissa and Eliza, share what motivates and interests them, what they did during their internship, and where they see themselves going in the future.

Thinking outside the box: Challenges to addressing air pollution as a NCD risk factor

Tuesday 29 January 2019
In the third and final Perspective of our air pollution series we consider the obstacles to regulation of air pollution as a non-communicable disease risk factor.

Thinking outside the box: Policies and regulatory measures to address air pollution

Friday 25 January 2019
This is the second Perspective in our series on air pollution where we examine the legal and regulatory measures available to governments to address air pollution.