Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited

[1999] NSWSC 408

CITATION:

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 408

CURRENT JURISDICTION:

Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S):

20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996

HEARING DATE(S):

27-29 April 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:

3 May 1999

PARTIES :

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

AMALGAMATED TELEVISIONS SERVICES PTY LIMITED
(Defendant)

CORRS CHAMBERS WESTGARTH
(On Subpoena)

JUDGMENT OF:

Levine J

COUNSEL :

R G McHugh
(Plaintiff)

W H Nicholas Q.C.
J S Wheelhouse
(Defendant)

M Pembroke S.C.
(Corrs Chambers Westgarth)

SOLICITORS:

Phillips Fox
(Plaintiff)

Mallesons Stephen Jaques
(Defendant)

Corrs Chambers Westgarth
(On Subpoena)

CATCHWORDS:

T1384: Evidence on Corrs application re subpoena

DECISION:

See paragraph 3

DLJT: 37(a)
(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 3 MAY 1999

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

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

CORRS CHAMBERS WESTGARTH
(On Subpoena)


JUDGMENT (T1384: Evidence on Corrs application re subpoena)

1 HIS HONOUR: On 28 April, (T1247.5), I ordered that such evidence as is relevant in the application by Corrs in respect of the subpoena will be evidence in the substantive application by the defendant to amend.
2 For reasons which I will later publish, I do not propose to vary that position. The evidence which is for the disposition of the application by Corrs will be limited to the evidence I have heard in support of it, that is evidence by affidavit and oral evidence in that application.
3 In relation to the resolution of that application, there was a suggestion that I might make the order and give reasons later. I have absolutely no intention of taking that course and I will reserve my decision. That will be decided when I decide it and it will be handed down as soon as possible.
**********

Last Modified: