Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 441

New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 441 CURRENT JURISDICTION : Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996 HEARING DATE(S) : 10 May 1999 JUDGMENT DATE : 10 May 1999

JOHN MARSDEN (Plaintiff)

PARTIES : v

AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED (Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Levine J

G Reynolds S.C. R G McHugh (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : W H Nicholas Q.C. J S Wheelhouse (Defendant) Phillips Fox (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Defendant) CATCHWORDS : On objection by counsel for the Defendant to certain questions in re-examination - T1463 DECISION : See paragraph 4

DLJT: 42 (Ex Tempore - Revised) 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 MAY 1999

JOHN MARSDEN (Plaintiff)

v

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

JUDGMENT (On objection by counsel for the Defendant to certain questions in re-examination - T1463) 1 HIS HONOUR: At a point in the re-examination of Mr Potter principally dealing with the various components of exhibit G, the question, in short form, has been asked: in the light of the experience gained in investigating D1 to D6, how long does Mr Potter think it will take to carry out the investigations in relation to D18 to D25? 2 The length of time of any adjournment for the purpose of investigating or preparing the plaintiff's case in relation to any allowed amendment will, no doubt, be the subject of submissions. 3 I appreciate that between the time Mr Potter commenced his evidence and was re-called to continue it and today, there have been developments constituted, obviously enough, by both his cross-examination and the admission into evidence of exhibit 12. 4 Mr Potter, in relation to one component (the City Plaza Hotel), was allowed to give an estimate of six months. I do not question, for one moment, Mr Potter's capacity to answer the question. The defendant however is put in an awkward position in terms of that answer being tested, it not having discretely been raised in chief or otherwise than I have allowed it. I propose to allow the subject matter of the question to be freely considered during submissions based on all the evidence I have received, but I disallow the question. **********