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

Monday 4 December 2023
People standing on stairs

Celebrating ten years of the WHO FCTC Knowledge Hub on Legal Challenges hosted at the McCabe Centre for Law and Cancer

Although tobacco still kills eight million people each year, the world has seen significant progress on tobacco control in the past few decades.
Tuesday 17 October 2023
Representatives from eight Knowledge Hubs around the world

Knowledge Hubs gather in Helsinki for sixth meeting

Representatives from eight Knowledge Hubs around the world gathered in Helsinki, Finland in September 2023 to share information and find innovative ways to collaborate as we work together towards a tobacco-free future.
Wednesday 27 September 2023
Cancer carers

Why we need to recognise the rights of our invisible cancer carers

With global cancer cases on the rise, it’s more important than ever to acknowledge the significant contributions of unpaid carers, who are mostly women.
Tuesday 26 September 2023
Women in meeting

Women, power, and cancer: A Lancet Commission

This report applies an intersectional feminist approach to investigate, expose, and challenge the current imbalance of power in relation to cancer. The report calls for sex and gender to be included in all cancer-related policies and guidelines, and includes a Comment from The McCabe Centre on the potential for law to be a powerful tool for change.
Wednesday 6 September 2023

Australia's opportunity to catch up on human rights

Despite Australia’s support of human rights at an international level, formal action on a human rights act is lagging behind other countries – but we have a unique opportunity to change this.