New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 404 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996 HEARING DATE(S) : 16 May 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 16 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 : Directions as to any further application for a pseudonym: T6143 DECISION : See paragraph 9 DLJT: 148 (Ex Tempore - Revised) [2000] NSWSC 404 THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DEFAMATION LIST No. 20223 of 1995 No. 20592 of 1996 JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE TUESDAY 16 MAY 2000 JOHN MARSDEN (Plaintiff) v AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED ACN 000 145 246 (Defendant) DIRECTIONS (As to any further application for a pseudonym: T6143) 1 HIS HONOUR: On Monday 15 May 2000, yesterday, at the commencement of proceedings I delivered a judgment (DLJT: 146 NSWSC 401) in relation to an application by a witness that he give his evidence under a pseudonym. That application was declined for the reasons set out in my judgment. 2 The extraordinary circumstances attending the making of the application are referred to in paragraph 2 where mention is made of the witness making the application literally as he walked into the courtroom at about 11.30 on Friday of last week. 3 Evidence was received during the course of that application, and oral evidence given, and it was based upon that material that I came to the conclusion that I did for the reasons that were stated. 4 The defendant now seeks to call a police officer in respect of an area referred to in the judgment in terms of my not being persuaded on all the evidence in the witness's application as to a certain state of affairs existing. 5 In my view, there are several courses open consequent upon my delivery of the interlocutory judgment on the 15th. 1. The witness can do nothing, or the defendant can do nothing. 2. The witness could appeal. 3. Another application can be sought to be made, but in light of the extraordinary circumstances attending the first one, any such further application to be made by the witness or by the defendant, if that is to be the case, will have to be attended by some formality. 6 Mr Stitt acted in his capacity as amicus curiae on the occasion of the witness's last application. If the further application is to be made, it is to be made by a Notice of Motion with an accompanying affidavit of evidence upon which the applicant proposes to rely. That will permit consideration of two things, the second dependant upon the outcome of the first. 7 Notice has been given by the plaintiff that there will be submissions made that a second application should not be entertained by reason of the apparent reliance on evidence that was existing at the time of first application. 8 If any such submissions are made by the plaintiff upon the formalisation of a second application of the witness or an application by the defendant is resolved in favour of the applicant, then both the plaintiff and the Court, this time, will be advised in advance of the evidentiary material to be relied upon. 9 If the witness, or whosoever is to make such an application, then a Notice of Motion and an affidavit should be delivered by 9.30 tomorrow morning. *********** 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.