New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 267 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996 HEARING DATE(S) : 02/03/00 JUDGMENT DATE : 6 April 2000 JOHN MARSDEN PARTIES : v AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED JUDGMENT OF : Levine J at 1 COUNSEL : M R Hall (Plaintiff) S Corry (Defendant) SOLICITORS : Phillips Fox (Plaintiff) Messrs Coode and Corry (Defendant) CATCHWORDS : On claim for privilege - Corry subpoena - Elomari. DECISION : See paragraph 6. DLJT: 133 [2000] NSWSC 267 THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION DEFAMATION LIST No. 20223 of 1995 No. 20592 of 1996 JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE THURSDAY 6 APRIL 2000 JOHN MARSDEN (Plaintiff) v AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED ACN 000 145 246 (Defendant) JUDGMENT: (On claim for privilege - Corry subpoena - Elomari) 1 A subpoena was issued on behalf of the plaintiff and served upon Mr Stephen Corry a solicitor of Penrith calling for the production to the Court of what I will describe as "Elomari" documents. 2 By affidavit sworn the 2nd of March Mr Corry asserts a claim for legal professional privilege on behalf of his client, Stephen Said Elomari. 3 Of the five separate bundles produced to the Court, inspection has been granted to the envelopes marked C and D. 4 In paragraphs 5 and 6 of his affidavit Mr Corry asserts the bases of the privilege expressly maintained by his client. 5 In accordance with the practice that has evolved in the course of this litigation I have inspected the contents of the three envelopes A, B and E. 6 The consideration took some time in view of the bulk of documents and view of the evidence in fact given by Mr Elomari. The conclusion to which I have come however is that the claim asserted by Mr Corry is established and accordingly the order will be that inspection of the documents in envelopes A, B and E is refused. They will retained by the Court until further order in Exhibit Office packet No. 290 which will be marked privilege not to be opened until further order. 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.