Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited

[2000] NSWSC 378

CITATION:

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 378

CURRENT JURISDICTION:

Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S):

SC 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996

HEARING DATE(S):

8 May 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:

8 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. J S Wheelhouse (Defendant)
SOLICITORS:	Phillips Fox (Plaintiff) Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Defendant)
CATCHWORDS:	On admissibility - reasonableness - plaintiff's non-participation in program - T5910
DECISION:	See paragraph 8

DLJT: 143
(Ex Tempore - Revised)
[2000] NSWSC 378

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

No. 20223 of 1995
No. 20592 of 1996

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

MONDAY 8 MAY 2000

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

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

JUDGMENT (On admissibility - reasonableness - plaintiff’s non-participation in program - T5910)

1    HIS HONOUR: The defendant seeks to tender an exchange of correspondence between Channel 7, over the signature of Greg Quail, the current witness, dated 15 March 1995, and Corrs Chambers Westgarth of the same date to Mallesons Stephen Jaques. 2    The tender is said to be relevant to the conduct of the defendant in publishing the Witness programme over a year later and to the plaintiff not being invited to participate in it and the reasons therefor. 3    The letter dated 15 March to Mr Quail of Channel 7 from the plaintiff is two days after the Today Tonight programme and I can infer, and it must be the case, I can presume, that proceedings in respect of Today Tonight were promptly instituted by the plaintiff. 4    In the first letter, Mr Quail invites Mr Marsden to participate in an interview in connection with the subject matter of a drug search, which was apparently the subject of report in The Sydney Morning Herald of 15 March. That interview was to be with Mr Neil Mercer on Today Tonight, either pre recorded or live. 5    The response from Corrs Chambers is to the effect that that firm would have thought it obvious to Channel 7, that proceedings having been commenced, Mr Marsden would not submit to an interview. Corrs Chambers asks Mallesons to advise their client that until further notice Mr Marsden will not submit to the interview by Channel 7. 6    The capacity of this exchange of correspondence to establish anything on the bases of relevance referred to by Mr Nicholas has been described by Mr Barker for the plaintiff, and, indeed, the whole exercise constituted by the exchange of correspondence, as ludicrous. 7    That is a powerful submission that will no doubt be made at the appropriate time in relation to this exchange of correspondence which the defendant has seen fit to tender as relevant to the identified issue. 8    I will admit the documents as exhibit 143. 9    No doubt they will be dealt with by the plaintiff, in due course, in terms that they have been dealt with in submissions. The basis of the tender has been explained. They have some relevance to those issues. Their status, in the end, will be a matter for argument, if not a very long one, I would think.

***********

Last Modified: 09/25/2000