Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited

[2000] NSWSC 297

CITATION:

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 297 revised - 2/05/2000

CURRENT JURISDICTION:

Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S):

SC 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996

HEARING DATE(S):

10 April 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:

10 April 2000

PARTIES :

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF:

Levine J at 1

COUNSEL :	I Barker QC M R Hall (Plaintiff) W H Nicholas QC J S Wheelhouse (Defendant)
SOLICITORS:	Phillips Fox (Plaintiff) Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Defendant)
CATCHWORDS:	Directions
DECISION:	Directions given.

DLJT: 136
(Ex Tempore - Revised)
[2000] NSWSC 297

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

No. 20223 of 1995
No. 20592 of 1996

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

MONDAY 10 APRIL 2000

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

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

DIRECTIONS

1    It is desirable, as far as possible, to ensure the further conduct of this trial runs as smoothly as possible, and taking into account particularly that the hearing of the trial will be adjourned for two weeks at the conclusion of business on Friday, 14 April 2000, I give the following directions as to its further conduct. 2    First, on or before 4pm on Tuesday, 11 April 2000, the plaintiff is to provide the defendant with the document which:

(a) contains the names of each witness the plaintiff, as at that date, anticipates calling in reply.
(b) identifies by category the principal issues to which the evidence of each witness relates.
(c) indicates the approximate order of witnesses as it is anticipated as at 11 April 2000 will cover the first three weeks of its case in reply.
(d) In providing the details of the witnesses to be called as referred to in (a), (b) and (c) above, where a witness relates to the defence of justification, particulars of the evidence in the defendant’s case to which the anticipated evidence in reply relates, also should be provided.

3    The second direction is that on or before 4.00pm on Friday, 14 April 2000, the plaintiff is to serve upon the defendant a folder containing copies of documents which the plaintiff at that time proposes to tender in reply. 4    The third direction is that the defendant on or before 4.00pm on Tuesday, 11 April 2000 is to provide the plaintiff with a list of all the witnesses it intends to call in its case who are not already listed in the facsimile communication from solicitors for the defendant to the solicitors to the plaintiff dated 31 March 2000. The defendant is to indicate in respect to any such additional witnesses the issues to which such additional or additional witness’s testimony will be relevant. 5    Liberty to apply to each side on half a day’s notice to a variation in directions I have just made. 6    BARKER: Can I reply with half a days’ notice in respect of direction 2? We are working on it. It requires examination of every MFI on every statement referred to in cross-examination. I had anticipated we would have it done to the end of the fortnight off. I understand the defendant has probably two weeks to go. We are probably going to start our case on the first, so we would like an extra fortnight. 7    HIS HONOUR: What I propose to do is I will revoke that direction that I have given and I will make another direction that at 10am on Friday, the plaintiff’s solicitors indicate the progress of any bundle of documents.

Last Modified: 09/25/2000