Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v World Netsafe [2002] FCA 517

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v World Netsafe [2002] FCA 517

The statement in paragraph 11 of Mr Webb’s affidavit is hearsay under s 59 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and is inadmissible; the exceptions under ss 60 and 87 do not apply in the present factual circumstances.

Parties
Applicant: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; First Respondent: World Netsafe Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Terence Butler
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Evidence Ruling in Ongoing Proceeding / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Objection sustained; evidence excluded
Legal Topics
Hearsay, Admissibility of Evidence, Agency, Corporate Admissions
Evidence Law Hearsay Admissibility of Evidence Agency Corporate Admissions

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Applicant

World Netsafe Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Terence Butler

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Evidence Ruling in Ongoing Proceeding / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a statement in an affidavit is inadmissible hearsay under s 59 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the statement falls under the exceptions in s 60 or s 87 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

The statement in paragraph 11 of Mr Webb’s affidavit is hearsay under s 59 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and is inadmissible; the exceptions under ss 60 and 87 do not apply in the present factual circumstances.

Court Disposition

Objection sustained; evidence excluded

Orders

  • The sentence in paragraph 11 of the affidavit of Daniel Christopher Webb, 'I am looking after the interests of World Netsafe in Australia' be excluded as hearsay.