IBRAHIM & ORS v PHAM & ORS [2004] NSWSC 650

IBRAHIM & ORS v PHAM & ORS [2004] NSWSC 650

The proffered tendency evidence was inadmissible because it was not persuaded to be tendency evidence; even if it were, it lacked significant probative value and would in any event be excluded under s135 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Rima Ibrahim; Second Plaintiff: Sargon Najorian Badal; Third Plaintiff: Badal Investments Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Philip Pham; Second Defendant: Pham Atic Pty Ltd; Third Defendant: Fred David; Fourth Defendant: Suzie David; Sixth Defendant: Paul Manuelpilla Dominic; Seventh Defendant: Linda Joan Gloria Romano
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Interlocutory Application on Admissibility of Tendency Evidence
Outcome
Evidence inadmissible
Legal Topics
Tendency Evidence, Admissibility, Negligence, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Trade Practices Act
Evidence Law Civil Procedure Tendency Evidence Admissibility Negligence Breach of Fiduciary Duty Trade Practices Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rima Ibrahim

First Plaintiff

Sargon Najorian Badal

Second Plaintiff

Badal Investments Pty Ltd

Third Plaintiff

Philip Pham

First Defendant

Pham Atic Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Fred David

Third Defendant

Suzie David

Fourth Defendant

Paul Manuelpilla Dominic

Sixth Defendant

Linda Joan Gloria Romano

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Interlocutory Application on Admissibility of Tendency Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proffered tendency evidence is admissible under s97 of the Evidence Act 1995 in civil proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the tendered evidence has significant probative value
  3. 3 Whether the evidence should be excluded under s135 of the Evidence Act

Ratio Decidendi

The proffered tendency evidence was inadmissible because it was not persuaded to be tendency evidence; even if it were, it lacked significant probative value and would in any event be excluded under s135 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Court Disposition

Evidence inadmissible

Orders

  • Application to tender tendency evidence refused
  • Exhibits on the voir dire to be returned