Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 664

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 664 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996 HEARING DATE(S) : 10 July 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 10 July 2000

JOHN MARSDEN (Plaintiff)

PARTIES : v

AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED (Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Levine J at 1

M R Hall (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : R Stitt Q.C. J S Wheelhouse (Defendant) Phillips Fox (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Defendant) CATCHWORDS : Admissibility - collateral facts - T8185 DECISION : See paragraph 3

DLJT: 190 (Ex Tempore - Revised) [2000] NSWSC 664

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

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

MONDAY 10 JULY 2000

JOHN MARSDEN (Plaintiff)

v

AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED ACN 000 145 246 (Defendant) JUDGMENT (Admissibility - collateral facts - T8185)

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff proposes to call a Mr Dunks, to whom reference was made in the evidence of Mr Marsden at T6789.5, in relation to an incident involving Mr Elomari outside a Vietnamese restaurant in Campbelltown. 2 This proposed evidence, in my view, does not fall within s 106(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), as no prior inconsistent statement can be readily identified, if at all. Nor does it fall within s 106(a). Evidence admissible under that subsection was taken from Mr Avzarradel, and ruled upon as admissible on 7 July 2000 (NSWSC 169: DLJT 188). 3 The proposed evidence, in my view, fairly can be characterised as itself collateral evidence to evidence which, but for the operation of s 106(a), would itself be inadmissible under the collateral facts rule. I decline to admit it. ***********