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). *********** 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.