Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited

[2000] NSWSC 516

CITATION:

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 516

CURRENT JURISDICTION:

Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S):

SC 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996

HEARING DATE(S):

26 May 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:

26 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) W H Nicholas Q.C. R Stitt Q.C. J S Wheelhouse (Defendant)
SOLICITORS:	Phillips Fox (Plaintiff) Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Defendant)
CATCHWORDS:	Privilege - waiver - former confidential exhibit ‘RWP 2’ to affidavit of Mr Potter sworn 26 November 1999 - T6535
DECISION:	See paragraph 3

DLJT: 165
(Ex Tempore - Revised)
[2000] NSWSC 516

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

No. 20223 of 1995
No. 20592 of 1996

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

FRIDAY 26 MAY 2000

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

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

JUDGMENT (Privilege - waiver - former confidential exhibit ‘RWP 2’ to affidavit of Mr Potter sworn 26 November 1999 - T6535)

1 On several occasions a call has been made by the defendant for the production by the plaintiff of that which was initially confidential exhibit RWP 2 to an affidavit of Mr Potter sworn 26 November 1999. 2 Having heard submissions, the conclusion to which I come to for the purpose of making a ruling is that privilege no longer applies to that document and the document together with its attachment should be produced to the defendant forthwith. The attachment must, at the very least, become exposed by reason of the operation of s 126 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). 3    Argument was heard as to the use to which RWP 2 was put in the course of the cross-examination of Dr Dent. Its deployment by counsel, in my view, without objection even though subsequent to an earlier ruling sustaining privilege, must bring about the result for which the defendant contends. The parties did not require formal reasons for the ruling. This is but a note thereof by reference to the submissions made and recorded at T6525 - 6536 (26 May 2000).

***********

Last Modified: 09/26/2000