New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 676 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996 HEARING DATE(S) : 12 July 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 12 July 2000 JOHN MARSDEN (Plaintiff) PARTIES : v AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED (Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Levine J at 1 M R Hall (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : W H Nicholas Q.C. R Stitt Q.C. J S Wheelhouse (Defendant) Phillips Fox (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Defendant) CATCHWORDS : Claim for privilege - defendant's subpoena to Mr Goold, Solicitor - T8276 DECISION : See paragraph 6 DLJT: 193 (Ex Tempore - Revised) [2000] NSWSC 676 THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DEFAMATION LIST No. 20223 of 1995 No. 20592 of 1996 JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE WEDNESDAY 12 JULY 2000 JOHN MARSDEN (Plaintiff) v AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED ACN 000 145 246 (Defendant) JUDGMENT (Claim for privilege - defendant's subpoena by Mr Goold, solicitor - T8276) 1 HIS HONOUR: A subpoena was served by the defendant upon Mr Gregory J Goold, Solicitor, on 4 July. The subpoena required production of material in eight categories relating to six named persons and one class of persons. 2 In response to the subpoena, Mr Goold produced three packets of documents which have been numbered 438(a), 438(b) and 438(c). 3 Accompanying the produced packets is a letter from Mr Goold addressed to myself and dated 5 July. From that letter, it can be understood that packet 438(a) contains documents in respect of which no claim for privilege is made. Access has been granted to the parties and has, I understand, been exercised. 4 The third packet, 438c, is the subject of what is described as "claim for legal professional privilege" by Mr Goold himself. One of those documents is a letter dated 17 May 2000 from Mallesons Stephen Jaques to Mr Goold. No claim is now made in respect to it. Nor, I add, can any claim founded upon confidentiality in the required sense be made in respect of material noted upon that letter. 5 The remaining typed documents of their very nature cannot be characterised as either confidential communications or confidential documents. The handwritten document dated 17 March 2000, which appears to be a brief note of a telephone call, cannot be characterised as a confidential communication or document and is consistent in its import with the typewritten communications from Mr Brian Pearce contained within the packet. I hold no privilege to apply to the documents in packet 438(c) and grant access to both parties. 6 The remaining packet, 438(b), contains documents in respect of which a claim is made by the plaintiff. I have considered the material and have concluded that the claim for privilege is made out, the documents being confidential documents and communications brought into existence and made for the dominant purpose of the plaintiff being provided with legal services in connection with this litigation and access to that packet is refused. *********** Last Modified: 09/26/2000 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.