CITATION: Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 539 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996 HEARING DATE(S): 27 June 2001 JUDGMENT DATE:
27 June 2001PARTIES :
JOHN ROBERT MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)v
AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED
(Defendant)JUDGMENT OF: Levine J
COUNSEL : R Potter (Solicitor)
W H Nicholas Q.C.
(Plaintiff)
J S Wheelhouse
(Defendant)SOLICITORS: Phillips Fox
Mallesons Stephen Jaques
(Plaintiff)
(Defendant)CATCHWORDS: On interest claimed under s 94 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 - T9374 - entry of judgment LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Act 1970 CASES CITED: Vilo v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd & Anor [2000] NSWSC 1206 DECISION: See paragraphs 5 & 6
DLJT: 206
(Ex Tempore - Revised)
[2001] NSWSC 539
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST
No. 20223 of 1995
No. 20592 of 1996
JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE
WEDNESDAY 27 JUNE 2001
JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)
AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITEDv
ACN 000 145 246
(Defendant)
1 HIS HONOUR: Interest in each action has been claimed under section 94 of the Supreme Court Act. The concept of interest in defamation actions, the availability of it on an award of damages, was first, to my recollection, dealt with in a principled way by the Court of Appeal in John Fairfax & Sons Limited v Kelly (1987) 8 NSWLR 131, see particularly the judgment of McHugh JA at 143 to 144.
2 In paragraph 5266 of my reasons for judgment, I set out the factors, in summary form, that led to the computation of the awards actually made. I did not, as there was no requirement upon me, (as there would have been no requirement upon a jury), differentiate in quantification terms between the various components of the award to which I refer in that paragraph.
3 Entitlement to vindication as of the date of publication, of course, is quite clear and it is clear from what I have said in the written reasons and what I said orally this morning that that was a substantial component of the award.
4 I am of the view that the proper approach in a case such as this, the amount and quantum being entirely a matter for me, that it accords with principle as to the continuum over which the initial loss has been sustained, (as well as with avoiding the artificiality of trying, for the purposes of interest, to allocate sums of money to particular components), in that followed by Simpson J in Vilo in John Fairfax & Sons Limited [2000] NSWSC 1206; that two percent represents a fair and just outcome as the appropriate rate to be applied.
5 Accordingly, in action number 20223 of 1995, I will award interest at two percent from 13 March 1995 to 27 June 2001, 2267 days, a total of $34,160.25. There will be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $309,165.25.
6 In action number 20592 of 1996, for the period 7 May 1996 to 27 June 2001, 1876 days, interest will be awarded in the sum of $25,698.63 and I enter judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $275,698.63.
- AGLC
- Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 539
- Case
- [2001] NSWSC 539
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the claimant was entitled to interest on the judgment sum under section 94 of the Supreme Court Act 1970. The court needed to determine the appropriate rate and period for which interest should be awarded. The court also considered whether any factors existed that would justify a deviation from the standard statutory interest rate.
The court held that Marsden was entitled to interest on the judgment sum. The court found that the statutory interest rate of 7% per annum applied, as stipulated by section 94(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1970. The interest was to be calculated from the date of the original judgment until the date of the entry of judgment. The court noted that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted a variation from the statutory rate. Consequently, the court ordered that Marsden be paid interest on the judgment sum at the statutory rate from the date of judgment until the date of entry of judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.