Body Enhancer couple were let down, court told

Directors of a company convicted of making bogus claims about a weight-loss product spent considerable sums researching the product and adopted a "perfectly proper approach" in checking it, a court has been told.

Zenith Corporation, owned by husband and wife directors Winston and Sylvia Gallot, was found guilty in June of breaching the Fair Trading Act in its advertising of Body Enhancer.

But in submissions before sentencing yesterday in the Auckland District Court, defence counsel John Katz, QC, said the couple had relied on the integrity of another company.

"The reliance may have been misplaced, but nevertheless, it was placed," he said.

The Commerce Commission is seeking fines close to the $2.6 million maximum against the company for its claims that Body Enhancer could assist fat burning, muscle growth, liver detoxification and prevention of collagen depletion.

The product was also said to help to build bones and tendon cells, heal cartilage, strengthen joints and heart muscles, break down fat and control appetite.

In convicting the company earlier, Judge Lindsay Moore was scathing in his criticism of the Gallots who, he said, "seized an opportunity to make very large profits".

But yesterday Mr Katz said the couple had not just "sourced the product from overseas".

They had spent a considerable amount of time and money on researching Body Enhancer, including commissioning a field survey.

After the allegations were made, the couple had also "at very considerable expense" gone to an Australian university to get the opinions of independent experts, Mr Katz said.

"The court may have rejected the opinions [of those experts] but that was a recognised research facility to which they went."

The Commerce Commission wants Judge Moore to order Zenith Corporation to take out corrective advertising in newspapers, on radio, on its own website, and to contact people who bought the product.

Mr Katz said media coverage of the trial so far had had a "devastating effect" on his clients and that should be taken into account in sentencing.

Despite all the publicity, the company still had a loyal following who could not be regarded as "dupes or as ignorant or as gullible".

The product sold today was not the same product about which the charges were brought, Mr Katz added.

A date had not been set for sentencing last night.