Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited

[1999] NSWSC 163

CITATION:

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 163

CURRENT JURISDICTION:

Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S):

20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996

HEARING DATE(S):

2 March 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:

2 March 1999

PARTIES :

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF:

Levine J

COUNSEL :	R G McHugh (Plaintiff) J S Wheelhouse (Defendant)
SOLICITORS:	Phillips Fox (Plaintiff) Mallesons Stephen Jacques (Defendant)
CATCHWORDS:	Plaintiff's application to be informed of defendant's subpoenas
DECISION:	See paragraph 6

- 3 -

DLJT: 20
(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

TUESDAY 2 MARCH 1999

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

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

JUDGMENT (Plaintiff’s application to be informed of defendant’s subpoenas)
1 HIS HONOUR: A curious matter has arisen in relation to subpoenas. There is no secret that leave was granted by me to the defendant to issue a subpoena and serve it upon the New South Wales Police Service.
2 It has been my understanding in fact that in the conduct of litigation there is no right in one party to know the identity of recipients of subpoenas issued by the other. I myself have no practical acquaintance nor any recollection of having acquaintance with what I will call Registry practice in relation to the filing and issuing of subpoenas.
3 Insofar as a request has been made by the plaintiff that the defendant disclose to the plaintiff not only the identity of the recipient of the subpoena but also the schedule to the subpoena, I decline to do so until I am persuaded that either as a matter of law or as a matter of practice there is an entitlement in the plaintiff (and of course in the defendant vis-a-vis the plaintiff), to that information.
4 I appreciate that a situation can arise where compliance with a subpoena by a stranger to the litigation may provoke some application by a party based upon perceived rights flowing from access granted by the Court to the material produced. I appreciate that one way to obviate that procedural difficulty would be the disclosure of the schedule to a subpoena issued by the other side. But on the basis of my experience and in the absence of any principle or authority or rule to which my attention has been directed, I decline to give the direction at this stage.
5 There may be areas of Registry practice governed by particular rules, or indeed regulations that relate to inspection of the Court file; clearly there are, because the parties prima facie have a right to inspect the Court file. Whether the parties have the right to inspect anything else in the Court Registry or office in connection with the file I do not know.
6 As I understand it, it is the practice of the Court to keep together documents produced on subpoena. Whether a facility is available to the legal representatives of the parties to ascertain any information in regard to documents delivered to the Court in answer to subpoenas will be a matter for the parties to explore.

**********

Last Modified: