Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited

[2000] NSWSC 36

CITATION:

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 36

CURRENT JURISDICTION:

Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S):

SC 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996

HEARING DATE(S):

9 February 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:

9 February 2000

PARTIES :

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF:

Levine J

COUNSEL :	I Barker Q.C. M Hall (Plaintiff) R Stitt Q.C. J S Wheelhouse (Defendant)
SOLICITORS:	Phillips Fox (Plaintiff) Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Defendant)
CATCHWORDS:	Admissibility of evidence - relevance - admission by conduct - T3759
DECISION:	See paragraph 5

DLJT: 84
(Ex Tempore - Revised)

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST

No. 20223 of 1995
No. 20592 of 1996

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

WEDNESDAY 9 FEBRUARY 2000

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED
ACN 000 145 246
(Defendant)


JUDGMENT (Admissibility of evidence - relevance - admission by conduct - T3759)

1    HIS HONOUR: The present witness is one in respect of whom the application to amend, disposed of on 23 June last year (NSWSC 619: DLJT: 44), was not in contention. 2    The directions made on that occasion as to the delivery by the defendant to the plaintiff of proofs of evidence related to the people then described as D 17 to D 24. 3    This strictly can be characterised as a late application to amend. It seems to me, however, that the plaintiff is not surprised in any technical sense, by reason, as I understand it, of the plaintiff independently having had access to material in which reference is made to there being at least more than one occasion of a "threesome", as I would describe it. 4    Further, in the event that the evidence of this witness evolves on this subject matter in a way that requires further time on the part of the plaintiff's counsel to prepare cross-examination, appropriate allowance will be made. Further, of course, without deciding such issue, presently it could hardly be said that in a general forensic sense the plaintiff is disadvantaged by this development. 5    In those circumstances, I am not presently inclined to direct the provision of the proof that the defendant's solicitors obtained from this witness which would otherwise, in my view, be privileged.

***********

Last Modified: 09/25/2000