Legal Research
Cases
Hadid v Lenfest Communications Inc

Hadid v Lenfest Communications Inc

Case [1996] FCA 945 4 November 1996

Jurisdiction

Discovery & Disclosure

Confidentiality

Commercial Sensitivity

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CATCHWORDS

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - documents produced by respondents in response to notice to produce - documents subject to consent orders restricting access to legal representatives and experts of applicant on undertakings being given as to confidentiality - whether orders should be varied to allow applicant access - whether s50 of the Federal Court Act authorises the making of such an order or whether s23 of tht Act applies - whether documents confidential as claimed - whether applicant a competitor or likely competitor of respondents as claimed.

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976; ss23 and 50.

Australian Broadcasting Commission v Parish (1980) 29 ALR 228; discussed.
Russell v Russell (1976) 134 CLR 495; referred to.
MacKay Sugar Co-operative Association Limited v CSR Limited (unreported, Spender J, 23 February 1996); referred to.
Harman v Home Office [1983] 2 AC 280; referred to.
Mulley v Manifold (1950) 103 CLR 341; referred to.
Independent Cement & Lime Pty Ltd v Australian Cement Ltd (unreported, Gray J, 27 October 1988); discussed and applied.
SRD v Australian Securities Commission (1994) 123 ALR 730; referred to.
Mobil Oil Australia v Guina Developments Pty Ltd (1995) 33 IPR 82; discussed and applied.
E. V. Australian Red Cross Society (1991) 27 FCR 310; referred to.
VX96A v Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (unreported, Merkel J, 30 September 1996); referred to.

ALBERT HADID v LENFEST COMMUNICATIONS INC & ORS

No NG 36 of 1995

HILL J
SYDNEY
4 NOVEMBER 1996

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
  )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )     No NG 36 of 1995
  )
GENERAL DIVISION                  )

BETWEEN:ALBERT HADID
Applicant

AND:LENFEST COMMUNICATIONS INC
First Respondent

H.F. LENFEST also known as GERRY LENFEST
Second Respondent

BAIN CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED
Third Respondent

WAYNE BURT
Fourth Respondent

AUSTRALIS MEDIA LIMITED
Fifth Respondent

RODNEY PRICE
Sixth Respondent

AND:LENFEST COMMUNICATIONS INC
Cross-Claimant

ALBERT HADID
Cross-Respondent

CORAM:    HILL J
PLACE:    SYDNEY
DATED:    4 NOVEMBER 1996

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The motion of 31 May 1996 be allowed.

The application for an order under s50 Federal Court Act is refused.

The costs of the applicant of 7, 12 and 13 June 1996 be paid by the respondents.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
  )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )     No NG 36 of 1995
  )
GENERAL DIVISION                  )

BETWEEN:ALBERT HADID
Applicant

AND:LENFEST COMMUNICATIONS INC
First Respondent

H.F. LENFEST also known as GERRY LENFEST
Second Respondent

BAIN CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED
Third Respondent

WAYNE BURT
Fourth Respondent

AUSTRALIS MEDIA LIMITED
Fifth Respondent

RODNEY PRICE
Sixth Respondent

AND:LENFEST COMMUNICATIONS INC
Cross-Claimant

ALBERT HADID
Cross-Respondent

CORAM:    HILL J
PLACE:    SYDNEY
DATED:    4 NOVEMBER 1996

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicant, Mr Hadid, moves the Court for an order that he and a Mr Noah be permitted access to certain documents presently the subject of confidentiality orders (made by consent) which restrict access to lawyers and experts. There is…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hadid v Lenfest Communications Inc

Details

AGLC: Hadid v Lenfest Communications Inc [1996] FCA 945
Case: [1996] FCA 945
Decision Date: 4 NOVEMBER 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hadid v Lenfest Communications Inc & Ors involved a motion by Albert Hadid seeking access to certain documents that were subject to confidentiality orders. The respondents, including Lenfest Communications Inc and Australis Media Limited, opposed the motion and sought orders under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 to deny access to the documents. The legal issues the court had to decide were whether section 50 of the Act authorised the making of such an order or whether section 23 of the Act applied, whether the documents were confidential as claimed, and whether Hadid was a competitor or likely competitor of the respondents as claimed. The court found that section 50 of the Act did not apply to the present case, but that section 23 provided the source of power for the order sought. The court held that the documents in question contained commercially sensitive or confidential information, but that Hadid was not a competitor or likely competitor of the respondents. Therefore, the court granted access to the documents to Hadid and Noah, subject to undertakings from them not to use the information for any other purpose than for the purpose of the proceedings, and not to disclose the information to any person other than legal representatives and engaged experts in the proceedings. The costs of the motion were to be paid by the respondents.

Orders