Hadid, Albert v Lenfest Communications Inc & Ors [1998] FCA 902

The evidence relating to the franchising arrangements, ownership and benefit from licence-related companies, and the question objected to in cross-examination, is not relevant to pleaded breaches of duty or the calculation of damages, nor to the alleged conspiracy as formulated in the statement of claim, and therefore is inadmissible.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 23 July 1998
Procedural Posture: Commercial Dispute / Evidentiary Ruling During Trial
Outcome: Objection upheld; evidence excluded.
Legal Topics: ['breach of Duty' 'account of Profits' 'conspiracy' 'damages' 'acquiescence and Delay' 'relevance of Evidence']

['commercial Law'] ['breach of Duty' 'account of Profits' 'conspiracy' 'damages' 'acquiescence and Delay' 'relevance of Evidence']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Procedural Posture

Commercial Dispute / Evidentiary Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

1 ["Whether evidence relating to the formation, ownership, and franchising arrangements of Licence A and related companies is relevant to pleaded breaches of duty or damages in the applicant's claim" 'Whether evidence sought is relevant to the alleged conspiracy, account of profits, defence of acquiescence and delay, or calculation of damages']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Objection upheld; evidence excluded.

Orders

['The particular question objected to in cross-examination is not permitted; evidence sought by this line of cross-examination is excluded.']