Legal Research
Cases
Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 27 June 2001 12 min read

Contents

On this page

CITATION: Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 510

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

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

HEARING DATE(S): Interlocutory Hearings; 1 February 1999; 3 February 1999; 4 February 1999; 9 February 1999; 10 February 1999; 11 February 1999; 12 February 1999; 15 February 1999; 16 February 1999; 17 February 1999; 18 February 1999; 19 February 1999; Jury - Trial; 22 February 1999; 23 February 1999; 24 February 1999; 25 February 1999; ; Interlocutory Hearings; 26 February 1999; 1 March 1999; 2 March 1999; 3 March 1999; 4 March 1999; 8 March 1999; 9 March 1999; 12 March 1999; 15 March 1999; 18 March 1999; 19 March 1999; 22 March 1999; 23 March 1999; 24 March 1999; 25 March 1999; March 1999; 29 March 1999; 30 March 1999; 31 March 1999; 12 April 1999; 13 April 1999; 14 April 1999; 15 April 1999; 16 April 1999; 19 April 1999; 20 April 1999; 21 April 1999; 23 April 1999; 27 April 1999; 28 April 1999; 29 April 1999; 3 May 1999; 4 May 1999; 7 May 1999; 10 May 1999; 14 May 1999; 17 May 1999; 18 May 1999; 19 May 1999; 24 May 1999; 25 May 1999; 26 May 1999; 27 May 1999; 28 May 1999; 31 May 1999; 1 June 1999; 23 June 1999; 25 June 1999; 28 June 1999 (Grafton); 2 August 1999; 13 August 1999; 19 August 1999; 18 October 1999; 20 October 1999; 22 October 1999; 25 October 1999; 26 October 1999; 28 October 1999; 29 October 1999; 2 November 1999; 4 November 1999; 9 November 1999; 12 November 1999.; Trial; 15 November 1999; 16 November 1999; 17 November 1999; 18 November 1999; 22 November 1999; 23 November 1999; 24 November 1999; 25 November 1999; 26 November 1999; 29 November 1999; 30 November 1999; 1 December 1999; 2 December 1999; 6 December 1999; 7 December 1999; 8 December 1999; 9 December 1999; 13 December 1999; 14 December 1999; 15 December 1999; 16 December 1999; 17 December 1999; 31 January 2000; 1 February 2000; 2 February 2000; 3 February 2000; 7 February 2000; 8 February 2000; 9 February 2000; 10 February 2000; 11 February 2000; 14 February 2000; 15 February 2000; 16 February 2000; 18 February 2000; 21 February 2000; 22 February 2000; 23 February 2000; 24 February 2000; 25 February 2000; 28 February 2000; 29 February 2000; 1 March 2000; 2 March 2000; 3 March 2000; 6 March 2000; 7 March 2000; 8 March 2000; 9 March 2000; 10 March 2000; 13 March 2000; 14 March 2000; 15 March 2000; 16 March 2000; 20 March 2000; 21 March 2000; 22 March 2000; 23 March 2000; 24 March 2000; 27 March 2000; 28 March 2000; 29 March 2000; 30 March 2000; 31 March 2000; 3 April 2000; 4 April 2000; 5 April 2000; 6 April 2000; 7 April 2000; 10 April 2000; 11 April 2000; 12 April 2000; 13 April 2000; 14 April 2000; 1 May 2000; 2 May 2000;…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] NSWSC 510
Decision Date: 27 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this legal dispute were Marsden and Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where Marsden sought damages for defamation, aggravated damages, and exemplary damages. Marsden alleged that defamatory statements were made about him in television broadcasts, which he attributed to the actions of Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd. The defendants argued against these claims, asserting various defences, including justification and qualified privilege, as provided under the Defamation Act 1974.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defamatory statements were indeed published by the defendants, and if so, whether the defendants could rely on the defences of justification, qualified privilege, or cognate defences such as truth and qualified protection. The court had to determine if the statements were justified, made under a qualified privilege, or otherwise protected under the Act. Furthermore, the court needed to assess the damages Marsden claimed, including psychiatric injury, aggravated damages, and exemplary damages, in accordance with sections 46, 46A, and 48 of the Defamation Act 1974.

The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It found that the defamatory statements were indeed published by the defendants. However, the court held that the defence of justification was not applicable as the statements were not true. Regarding the defence of qualified privilege, the court determined that it was not applicable in this context. The court found that the defendants' publication of the defamatory statements was not protected under any of the defences outlined in the Defamation Act 1974. Consequently, the court awarded Marsden damages for the defamation, as well as aggravated damages and exemplary damages, as claimed. The court's judgment detailed the basis for these findings and the calculations for the awarded damages.

Orders