NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 516 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996 HEARING DATE(S) : 26 May 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 26 May 2000
JOHN MARSDEN (Plaintiff)
PARTIES : v
AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED (Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Levine J at 1
I Barker Q.C. 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 : Privilege - waiver - former confidential exhibit 'RWP 2' to affidavit of Mr Potter sworn 26 November 1999 - T6535 DECISION : See paragraph 3
DLJT: 165 (Ex Tempore - Revised) [2000] NSWSC 516
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DEFAMATION LIST No. 20223 of 1995 No. 20592 of 1996
JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE
FRIDAY 26 MAY 2000
JOHN MARSDEN (Plaintiff)
v
AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED ACN 000 145 246 (Defendant) JUDGMENT (Privilege - waiver - former confidential exhibit 'RWP 2' to affidavit of Mr Potter sworn 26 November 1999 - T6535) 1 On several occasions a call has been made by the defendant for the production by the plaintiff of that which was initially confidential exhibit RWP 2 to an affidavit of Mr Potter sworn 26 November 1999. 2 Having heard submissions, the conclusion to which I come to for the purpose of making a ruling is that privilege no longer applies to that document and the document together with its attachment should be produced to the defendant forthwith. The attachment must, at the very least, become exposed by reason of the operation of s 126 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). 3 Argument was heard as to the use to which RWP 2 was put in the course of the cross-examination of Dr Dent. Its deployment by counsel, in my view, without objection even though subsequent to an earlier ruling sustaining privilege, must bring about the result for which the defendant contends. The parties did not require formal reasons for the ruling. This is but a note thereof by reference to the submissions made and recorded at T6525 - 6536 (26 May 2000). ***********
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate