Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 408

New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 408 CURRENT JURISDICTION : Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996 HEARING DATE(S) : 27-29 April 1999 JUDGMENT DATE : 3 May 1999

JOHN MARSDEN (Plaintiff)

v PARTIES : AMALGAMATED TELEVISIONS SERVICES PTY LIMITED (Defendant)

CORRS CHAMBERS WESTGARTH (On Subpoena) JUDGMENT OF : Levine J

R G McHugh (Plaintiff)

W H Nicholas Q.C. COUNSEL : J S Wheelhouse (Defendant)

M Pembroke S.C. (Corrs Chambers Westgarth) Phillips Fox (Plaintiff)

SOLICITORS : Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Defendant)

Corrs Chambers Westgarth (On Subpoena) CATCHWORDS : T1384: Evidence on Corrs application re subpoena DECISION : See paragraph 3

DLJT: 37(a) (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 3 MAY 1999

JOHN MARSDEN (Plaintiff)

v

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

CORRS CHAMBERS WESTGARTH (On Subpoena)

JUDGMENT (T1384: Evidence on Corrs application re subpoena) 1 HIS HONOUR: On 28 April, (T1247.5), I ordered that such evidence as is relevant in the application by Corrs in respect of the subpoena will be evidence in the substantive application by the defendant to amend. 2 For reasons which I will later publish, I do not propose to vary that position. The evidence which is for the disposition of the application by Corrs will be limited to the evidence I have heard in support of it, that is evidence by affidavit and oral evidence in that application. 3 In relation to the resolution of that application, there was a suggestion that I might make the order and give reasons later. I have absolutely no intention of taking that course and I will reserve my decision. That will be decided when I decide it and it will be handed down as soon as possible. **********