Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited

[1999] NSWSC 440

CITATION:

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 440

CURRENT JURISDICTION:

Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S):

20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996

HEARING DATE(S):

7 May 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:

7 May 1999

PARTIES :

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF:

Levine J

COUNSEL :	I Barker Q.C. G Reynolds S.C. R G McHugh (Plaintiff) W H Nicholas Q.C. J S Wheelhouse (Defendant)
SOLICITORS:	Phillips Fox (Plaintiff) Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Defendant)
CATCHWORDS:	T1428: Directions
DECISION:	See paragraphs 4 - 10

DLJT: 41
(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

FRIDAY 7 MAY 1999

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

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

JUDGMENT (T1428: Directions)

1 HIS HONOUR: Directions are required in relation to submissions and argument for the resolution of the two substantive applications presently outstanding, namely, the application in relation to the amendment of the defence case on the issue of justification and the plaintiff's application to have set aside the subpoena to the Police Service, issued by the defendant. I do not propose to isolate the question or issue in respect of which evidence was heard from Dr Dent and Dr White, a quite substantial period of time ago.
2 I will be assisted by written submissions from both sides in chief, in response and in reply, which submissions are required to set out transcript references, exhibit references, and affidavit reference by references to date and particular paragraphs.
3 I have heard from senior counsel for each side this morning as to varyious suggestions as to a timetable, that for the plaintiff suggesting that attention next week, that is the week commencing 10th May, be devoted to the provision of written submissions and in the following week any required number of days be devoted to oral submissions. The suggestion from senior counsel for the defendant is that, in effect, both written and oral submissions can be accommodated next week. Not ignoring the important consideration of fairness to myself, I think the appropriate course is the following.
4 By noon on Tuesday 11th May 1999 the plaintiff is to have delivered his written submissions in support of the application to set-aside the subpoena. By noon on Wednesday 12th May 1999 the defendant is to have delivered written submissions (a) in support of the amendment application, (b) in opposition to the application to set-aside the subpoena.
5 By noon on Thursday 13th May 1999 the plaintiff is to have delivered submissions in response to the defendant's submissions in support of the amendment application, and in reply to the defendant's submissions to the plaintiff's application to set-aside the subpoena.
6 By noon on Friday 14th May 1999 the defendant is to have delivered submissions in reply to the plaintiff's submissions in response to the defendant's submission in support of the application to amend.
7 Oral submissions will be then heard on Monday 17th May.
8 I will grant liberty to apply, which may be exercised during the course of next week, in respect of any application to vary that timetable for things that might happen next.
9 I will stand the matter over for further directions to Monday 10th May at 10am for the purpose of the conclusion of the testimony of Mr Potter.
10 MATTER ADJOURNED TO MONDAY 10 MAY 1999

**********

Last Modified: