New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 87 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996 HEARING DATE(S) : 24 February 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 24 February 2000 JOHN MARSDEN (Plaintiff) PARTIES : v AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED (Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Levine J I Barker Q.C. M Hall (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : R Stitt Q.C. J S Wheelhouse (Defendant) Phillips Fox (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Defendant) CATCHWORDS : On application by defendant to access to documents over which privilege had been claimed - T4268 DECISION : See paragraph 3 - 2 - DLJT: 100 (Ex Tempore - Revised) [2000] NSWSC 87 THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DEFAMATION LIST No. 20223 of 1995 No. 20592 of 1996 JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE THURSDAY 24 FEBRUARY 2000 JOHN MARSDEN (Plaintiff) v AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED ACN 000 145 246 (Defendant) JUDGMENT (On application by Defendant to access to documents over which privilege had been claimed - T4268) 1 HIS HONOUR: On 18 February, in a short ruling NSWSC 68: DLJT: 94, I upheld a claim for privilege in relation to what are there described as the "Gulley" documents. 2 Mr Gulley has been called by the defendant and has given evidence in relation to what I will describe as transactions or events that took place involving himself, Mr Pearce, the plaintiff, Mr Quail and Mr Angus. Various exhibits have been tendered by the defendant as part of its case in the second category to which I referred in my first ruling of today (NSWSC 86: DLJT: 99). 3 The privilege, as I see it, is not advanced as that of Mr Marsden. That which was protected by my earlier ruling, was the privilege of the client of Mr Gulley, Mr Pearce. Whilst noting Mr Stitt's submissions that it has been waived, in the context of the structure of evidence led in-chief and the manner of cross-examination, nothing has occurred, which to me, constitutes a waiver of that privilege, and I decline the application for access. *********** Last Modified: 09/25/2000 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.