Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 195

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 195 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996 HEARING DATE(S) : 20 March 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 20 March 2000

JOHN MARSDEN (Plaintiff)

PARTIES : v

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

I Barker Q.C. M R Hall (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : R Stitt Q.C. J S Wheelhouse (Defendant) Phillips Fox (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Defendant) CATCHWORDS : Documents under subpoena - application for inspection - claim for confidentiality - Education Regulations 1996, cl.5 - limited access - T4862 DECISION : See paragraph 5

DLJT: 122 (Ex Tempore - Revised) [2000] NSWSC 195

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DEFAMATION LIST No. 20223 of 1995 No. 20592 of 1996

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

MONDAY 20 MARCH 2000

JOHN MARSDEN (Plaintiff)

v

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

JUDGMENT (Documents under subpoena - application for inspection - claim for confidentiality - Education Regulations 1996, cl. 5 - limited access - T4862)

1 HIS HONOUR: A subpoena has been issued by the plaintiff and served upon the proper officer of the Board of Studies for production of documents in relation to the witness Jason Stevens. 2 The subpoena has been answered by the Board of Studies providing the material sought by the subpoena, being a Record of Achievement. Accompanying the material provided is a communication from the Director of Finance and Administration drawing my attention to cl 5 of the Education Regulations 1996 and to judgments delivered by me in the matter of Carroll and others v Nationwide News Pty Limited on 11 June 1999. 3 Without going into the question of whether or not Mr Stevens can be taken in his evidence, either in chief or cross-examination, to have consented to the disclosure as required by the regulation, it is not inappropriate in the circumstances that the certificates produced by the subpoenaed party be available for inspection by the legal advisers only at this stage for each side. 4 It seems to me that it is not so much the contents in relation to academic achievement that may be relevant but rather the year in respect to which the certificates relate. 5 If the document is sought to be deployed in evidence, then I will make an order that there be non disclosure of the contents of the certificates for the relevant year, unless I am persuaded otherwise. I will hand those documents down to the plaintiff. ***********