Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited

[1999] NSWSC 1135

CITATION:

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 1135

CURRENT JURISDICTION:

Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S):

20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996

HEARING DATE(S):

15 November 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:

15 November 1999

PARTIES :

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF:

Levine J

COUNSEL :	P Donohoe Q.C. M Hall (Plaintiff) W H Nicholas Q.C. (Defendant)
SOLICITORS:	Marsdens (Plaintiff) Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Defendant)
CATCHWORDS:	On admissibility of evidence - T2120.50 - reputation evidence
CASES CITED:	Hughes v Mirror Newspapers (1985) 3 NSWLR 504 Readers Digest Services Pty Ltd v Lamb [198-2] 150 CLR 500
DECISION:	See paragraph 5

DLJT: 52
(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

MONDAY 15 NOVEMBER 1999

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

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


Judgment (On admissibility of evidence - T2120.50 - reputation evidence)

1    The following series of questions and answers were given by Mr Lyall in examination-in-chief:

“Q. What impact did that have upon Mr Marsden’s reputation, amongst members of the legal profession?
A. It is very hard to say generally but I think it had an impacts (sic) amongst the members of the profession.
Q. What was that?
A. They thought less of him”.

2    The plaintiff, it being expressly disavowed that the evidence was tendered on the basis of Readers Digest Services Pty Limited v Lamb ([1981-2] 150 CLR 500 at 507 per Brennan J), the question arises as to its admissibility in accordance with established principles in relation to reputation evidence. 3 For the defendant it was argued that the tendered testimony falls within none of the categories of admissible evidence in relation to the plaintiff post-publication as dealt with by Hunt J in Hughes v Mirror Newspapers (1985) 3 NSWLR 504 at 512-3. 4 It is clear from what Hunt J said at 513E-F that the admissibility of evidence of the kind with which I am concerned is not justifiable in relation to the plaintiff’s reputation “after” publication, if it goes only to the status of that reputation post-publication as opposed to the particular circumstances of evidence of third party utterances about the plaintiff. 5    By reason of the observations of Hunt J just referred to and their applicability to the questions and answers set out above, I am of the view that the evidence is inadmissible and the evidence tendered will be struck out.

***********

Last Modified: 11/29/1999