Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Lux Pty Limited [2003] FCA 1068

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Lux Pty Limited [2003] FCA 1068

General objections to the Hayes Report based on irrelevance (s 56) and the danger of unfair prejudice (s 135) are dismissed, as cross-examination will provide opportunity to challenge the evidence and no present basis exists to find probative value substantially outweighed by prejudice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Objection to Evidence / Ruling on Objections to Expert Report
Outcome
Objections to the Hayes Report dismissed
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'relevance' 'probative Value' 'danger of Unfair Prejudice']
['evidence Law'] ['admissibility of Expert Evidence' 'relevance' 'probative Value' 'danger of Unfair Prejudice']

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
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Objection to Evidence / Ruling on Objections to Expert Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the expert report of Associate Professor Susan Hayes is admissible under Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 56 and 135' 'Whether specific paragraphs of the Hayes Report are irrelevant or their probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice']

Ratio Decidendi

General objections to the Hayes Report based on irrelevance (s 56) and the danger of unfair prejudice (s 135) are dismissed, as cross-examination will provide opportunity to challenge the evidence and no present basis exists to find probative value substantially outweighed by prejudice.

Court Disposition

Objections to the Hayes Report dismissed

Orders

  • ["The Applicant's objections to the Respondents' expert report of Associate Professor Susan Hayes made in notice of objections filed 10 September 2003 be resolved in accordance with the attached ruling."]