Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited

[2000] NSWSC 96

CITATION:

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 96

CURRENT JURISDICTION:

Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S):

SC 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996

HEARING DATE(S):

25 February 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:

25 February 2000

PARTIES :

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED
(Defendant)

POLICE SERVICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
(On Subpoena)

JUDGMENT OF:

Levine J

COUNSEL :

I Barker Q.C.
M R Hall
(Plaintiff)

R Stitt Q.C.
J S Wheelhouse
(Defendant)

P Lakatos
(Police Service)

SOLICITORS:

Phillips Fox
(Plaintiff)

Mallesons Stephen Jaques
(Defendant)

Crown Solicitors Office
(Police Service - on subpoena)

CATCHWORDS:

On application by Police Service of New South Wales for Public Interest immunity in respect of documents under subpoena - T4294

DECISION:

See paragraph 6

DLJT: 102
(Ex Tempore - Revised)
[2000] NSWSC 96

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

No. 20223 of 1995
No. 20592 of 1996

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

FRIDAY 25 FEBRUARY 2000

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

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



POLICE SERVICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
(On Subpoena)

JUDGMENT (On application by Police Service of NSW for Public Interest Immunity in respect of documents under subpoena - T4294)

1    HIS HONOUR: By notice of motion filed in Court this afternoon, the Commissioner of Police, under subpoena, makes a claim for public interest immunity in respect of documents produced to the Court in answer to a subpoena issued by the plaintiff in these proceedings. 2    I have read the affidavit of Deputy Commissioner Moroney sworn today and confidential exhibits A1 and A2. 3    The ground for the claim of public interest immunity rests in one of the accepted categories thereof. 4    Mr Hall of counsel, for the plaintiff, suffers the usual disadvantage attendant on a legal representative in his position in such an application as this. He can, however, and does, point to exhibit 42 in the action, a public exhibit, as providing an unusual component to be taken into account in determining the Commissioner's claim. 5    The specific exhibit, in my view, does not derogate from the validity of the claim made in the general sense, amplified in the material I have considered. 6    In the light of well-known authorities in this area of the law, I uphold the claim for public interest immunity.

***********

Last Modified: 09/25/2000