CITATION: Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v John Marsden [2000] NSWCA 167 FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40394/00; CLD20223/95; 20592/96 HEARING DATE(S): 06/07/2000 to 07/07/2000 JUDGMENT DATE:
13 July 2000PARTIES :
Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v John MarsdenJUDGMENT OF: Priestley JA; Powell JA; Foster AJA
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court - Common Law Division LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :20223/95; 20592/96 LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :Levine J
COUNSEL: W.H. Nicholas QC / N.J. Williams/ M.S. White - Claimant
I.D. Temby QC / M. Buscombe - OpponentSOLICITORS: Mallesons Stephen Jaques - Claimant
Phillips Fox - OpponentLEGISLATION CITED: Part 31 of the Supreme Court Rules
The Listening Devices Act 1984
The Evidence Act 1995CASES CITED: Ventouris v Mountain (No 2) (1992) 1 WLR 887
R. v Karageorge (1998) 146 FLR 100DECISION: Refer Paragraph 45.
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
CA40394/00
CLD20223/95; 20592/96
PRIESTLEY JA
POWELL JA
FOSTER AJA
THURSDAY, 13 JULY, 2000
1 THE COURT:
AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LTD v MARSDEN
JUDGMENT2 The interlocutory orders all related to the admissibility of certain evidence, rejected by Levine J. The parties were concerned that if the plaintiff obtained judgment and the defendant then appealed, and if on appeal the view was taken that the evidence should have been admitted, then the result might be the ordering of a new trial, which neither party wanted. 3 Levine J, in order to facilitate proceedings in this court made orders under Part 31 rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules that certain questions be determined separately. These questions and his answers to them embodied his decisions on the various points about which the claimant sought leave to appeal. 4 The questions, all of which he answered “No” were as follows:
The form of the proceedings in this court .
The claimant, Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited, by its further amended summons dated 29 June 2000, sought leave to appeal from a number of interlocutory orders made by Levine J during the course of a lengthy trial, which is still proceeding before him, in which the claimant is the defendant and the opponent, Mr John Marsden, is the plaintiff.
(1) Whether the document MFI 191 should be admitted into evidence as probative of the fact that warrant No 308 of 1995 was granted pursuant to s 16, Listening Devices Act (the Act).
(2) Whether the document MFI 197 should be admitted into evidence as probative of the fact that warrant Nos 314 of 1995 and 315 of 1995 were granted pursuant to s 16 of the Act.
(3) Whether the document MFI 193 should be admitted into evidence as probative of the fact that warrant Nos 345 of 1995 and 346 of 1995 were granted pursuant to s 16 of the Act.
(4) Whether the document MFI 199 should be admitted into evidence as probative of the fact that warrant Nos 89 of 1996 and 90 of 1996 were granted pursuant to…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2000] NSWCA 167
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd (ATV) and others were the defendants in proceedings brought by the plaintiff, Mr Marsden, concerning allegations of defamation. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the defence of qualified privilege was available to the defendants in relation to statements made in a television broadcast. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the broadcast, which concerned allegations of misconduct by the plaintiff, was made on an occasion of qualified privilege and, if so, whether that privilege had been defeated by malice.
The court's reasoning focused on the established principles of qualified privilege, particularly as they apply to media publications. It was held that a duty to publish, or an interest in receiving, information can give rise to qualified privilege. However, this privilege is defeated if the publisher is actuated by malice, meaning the publication was made with an improper motive, such as spite or a reckless disregard for the truth. The court examined the evidence presented to determine if the defendants had acted with malice in broadcasting the statements about Mr Marsden.
The Court of Appeal ultimately found that the defence of qualified privilege was not available to the defendants. The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the defence of qualified privilege was available to the defendants in relation to statements made in a television broadcast. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the broadcast, which concerned allegations of misconduct by the plaintiff, was made on an occasion of qualified privilege and, if so, whether that privilege had been defeated by malice.
The court's reasoning focused on the established principles of qualified privilege, particularly as they apply to media publications. It was held that a duty to publish, or an interest in receiving, information can give rise to qualified privilege. However, this privilege is defeated if the publisher is actuated by malice, meaning the publication was made with an improper motive, such as spite or a reckless disregard for the truth. The court examined the evidence presented to determine if the defendants had acted with malice in broadcasting the statements about Mr Marsden.
The Court of Appeal ultimately found that the defence of qualified privilege was not available to the defendants. The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Refer Paragraph 45.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.