Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited

[2000] NSWSC 437

CITATION:

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 437

CURRENT JURISDICTION:

Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S):

SC 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996

HEARING DATE(S):

23 May 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:

23 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:	On application to exclude evidence - T6342
DECISION:	See paragraph 3

DLJT: 160
(Ex Tempore - Revised)
[2000] NSWSC 437

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

No. 20223 of 1995
No. 20592 of 1996

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

TUESDAY 23 MAY 2000

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

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

JUDGMENT (On application to exclude evidence - T6342)

1    HIS HONOUR: I am not prepared to exclude this evidence either as a matter of discretion or on the basis that it is otherwise inadmissible. The evidence is directed to a component of the defendant's case of truth. That component of the truth case, as has been described, is admissions by conduct. Whether in the end whatever it is the defendant proves as to the conduct does or even can constitute an admission consistent with the plaintiff having done that which is alleged against him is a matter in my view clearly for submissions at the end of the evidence. 2    It may well be that everything turns out to be innocent and anodyne or it may well not be. It is certainly premature on any view to make any ruling or finding that what is said to be a "premise" has disappeared, that premise being said to be whether or not the plaintiff in fact misconducted himself with D18 at the relevant time. 3    I will allow the evidence.

***********

Last Modified: 09/25/2000