Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited

[2000] NSWSC 664

CITATION:

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 664

CURRENT JURISDICTION:

Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S):

SC 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996

HEARING DATE(S):

10 July 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:

10 July 2000

PARTIES :

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF:

Levine J at 1

COUNSEL :	M R Hall (Plaintiff) R Stitt Q.C. J S Wheelhouse (Defendant)
SOLICITORS:	Phillips Fox (Plaintiff) Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Defendant)
CATCHWORDS:	Admissibility - collateral facts - T8185
DECISION:	See paragraph 3

DLJT: 190
(Ex Tempore - Revised)
[2000] NSWSC 664

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

No. 20223 of 1995
No. 20592 of 1996

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

MONDAY 10 JULY 2000

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

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

JUDGMENT (Admissibility - collateral facts - T8185)

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff proposes to call a Mr Dunks, to whom reference was made in the evidence of Mr Marsden at T6789.5, in relation to an incident involving Mr Elomari outside a Vietnamese restaurant in Campbelltown. 2 This proposed evidence, in my view, does not fall within s 106(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), as no prior inconsistent statement can be readily identified, if at all. Nor does it fall within s 106(a). Evidence admissible under that subsection was taken from Mr Avzarradel, and ruled upon as admissible on 7 July 2000 (NSWSC 169: DLJT 188). 3    The proposed evidence, in my view, fairly can be characterised as itself collateral evidence to evidence which, but for the operation of s 106(a), would itself be inadmissible under the collateral facts rule. I decline to admit it.

***********

Last Modified: 09/26/2000