Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited

[2000] NSWSC 375

NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT

CITATION:     Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000]  NSWSC 375

CURRENT JURISDICTION:           Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S):   20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996

HEARING DATE{S):           5 May 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:            05/05/2000

PARTIES:
JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF:      Levine J     

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Not Applicable

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):       Not Applicable

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:     Not Applicable

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:
Defendant's subpoena - Police Service - access - T5791

ACTS CITED:

DECISION:
See paragraph 1

JUDGMENT:

DLJT:  140
(Ex Tempore - Revised)
[2000] NSWSC 375

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

No.  20223 of 1995
No.  20592 of 1996

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

FRIDAY 5 MAY 2000

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

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

JUDGMENT (Defendant’s subpoena - Police Service - access- T5791)

1. In answer to the subpoena issued by the defendant's solicitors, the New South Wales Police Service has produced a parcel of documents in response to the subpoena issued on 1 May relating to Detective Panich and another.  The materials are contained in packet number 391.  I have examined the schedule to the subpoena and skimmed through the documents attached.  There is nothing in there that persuades me that the plaintiff should have first access.  The defendant will have first access, and the plaintiff thereafter.

***********

LAST UPDATED:    15/05/2000