Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited

[2000] NSWSC 168

CITATION:

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 168

CURRENT JURISDICTION:

Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S):

SC 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996

HEARING DATE(S):

14 March 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:

14 March 2000

PARTIES :

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF:

Levine J

COUNSEL :	I Barker Q.C. M R Hall (Plaintiff) R Stitt Q.C. J S Wheelhouse (Defendant)
SOLICITORS:	Phillips Fox (Plaintiff) Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Defendant)
CATCHWORDS:	On application for adjournment - application for pseudonym order - T4817
DECISION:	See paragraphs 9-11

DLJT: 116
(Ex Tempore - Revised)
[2000] NSWSC 168

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

No. 20223 of 1995
No. 20592 of 1996

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

TUESDAY 14 MARCH 2000

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

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


JUDGMENT (On application for adjournment - application for pseudonym order - T4817)

1    HIS HONOUR: The application by this witness, or on his behalf, by the defendant for a pseudonym order was foreshadowed. It has now been filed and has been crystallised, to which I adverted in the first of this afternoon's rulings, by the calling of Mr Ball (NSWSC 160: DLJT: 114). That led to the filing and service of the notice of motion and the affidavit of Mr Price and service on the plaintiffs. 2    The plaintiff is not ready to meet the application and that position is not disputed by the defendant. 3    For the defendant, however, it is argued further that it is logically inconsistent for counsel for the plaintiff to say: one, “we are not ready” and, two, the application which we are not ready to meet is without merit any way. 4    If the combination of those two propositions was accepted, every time they are made, as being logically inconsistent with the inevitable consequence that adjournments would not be granted, the business of this Court would proceed with a breathtaking degree of dispatch. 5    The receiving party of an application of this kind is entitled to advance, through senior counsel, that upon first reading the view was formed as to its merits (or lack of them). 6    Secondly, conformably with the prudence and care each side has taken on interlocutory applications in this case, it would be incumbent upon the plaintiff to explore the matter with a view to determining his ultimate approach to it. 7    The application by the plaintiff is that the matter be stood over sine die. I am not prepared to accede to do that. I am prepared to stand it over for further mention at a time to be fixed. 8    I say that in this context. The material in paragraph 2 of Mr Price's affidavit is of a kind that points to the possibility that, upon exploratory steps being taken, applications might be made by other entities and persons. The whole “circular business,” which I need not elaborate upon, and which I am sure is known to the parties, is likely to be met again, and it is to obviate the danger of futility in such an exercise or circularity, or “catch 22” situation that I think it important that a date be fixed for the application to be further mentioned. 9    I propose, first, to grant the adjournment sought by the plaintiff. 10    Secondly, I do not propose to make any interim order in accordance with paragraph 1 until the hearing of this application proceeds in a substantive way by the reading of Mr Price's affidavit. 11    It is Tuesday. I will stand the matter over to 9.45 on Thursday morning for further mention.

***********

Last Modified: 09/25/2000