Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited

[2000] NSWSC 475

CITATION:

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 475

CURRENT JURISDICTION:

Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S):

SC 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996

HEARING DATE(S):

29 May 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:

29 May 2000

PARTIES :

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF:

Levine J at 1

COUNSEL :	I Barker Q.C. M R Hall (Plaintiff) R Stitt Q.C. J S Wheelhouse (Defendant)
SOLICITORS:	Phillips Fox (Plaintiff) Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Defendant)
CATCHWORDS:	Tender of Telstra documents - Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 48(1)(e) - T6580
DECISION:	See paragraph 2

DLJT: 166
(Ex Tempore - Revised)
[2000] NSWSC 475

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

No. 20223 of 1995
No. 20592 of 1996

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

MONDAY 29 MAY 2000

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

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

JUDGMENT (Tender of Telstra documents - Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 48(1)(e) - T6580 )

1    HIS HONOUR: I am not presently persuaded that the documents the subject of the tender; namely a letter from Telstra dated 28 January 2000 - which was the first component of the tender - or the second component of the tender made up of a letter dated 18 November 1999 addressed to the Prothonotary, and a letter dated 11 February 2000 enclosing the former, plus what is described as a “source” document, are admissible by the operation either of s 69 in terms of each respectively being a business record. 2 The argument Mr Stitt advances as to internal statements in the tender documents pointing to them not being such is persuasive, and therefore not being business records, are not amenable to the operation of s 48(1)(e), which requires the operation of subparagraphs 1 and 2 conjunctively. The documents will be marked for identification 204.

***********

Last Modified: 09/26/2000