Adlock Pty Limited & 3 Ors v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 635

Adlock Pty Limited & 3 Ors v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 635

Applying presently accepted doctrine, the objections to interrogatories 4, 5, 7 and 9 were well founded insofar as they were framed by reference to imputations, but the defendant was required to answer them as if framed by reference to the matter published. Interrogatories 12 and 17 were legitimate because they related to the defendant's s 22 defence. The defendant was not required to answer interrogatories 13 or 14, and was not in default under Pt 34 r 6. Because the application relating to the interrogatories was effectively a draw, each party was to pay its own costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceeding / Interlocutory Judgment on Interrogatories
Outcome
Application concerning interrogatories partially allowed; each party to pay its own costs.
Legal Topics
['interrogatories' 'defence Under S 22 of the Defamation Act' 'comment' 'qualified Privilege' 'protected Report' 'trade Practices Act S 52']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['interrogatories' 'defence Under S 22 of the Defamation Act' 'comment' 'qualified Privilege' 'protected Report' 'trade Practices Act S 52']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceeding / Interlocutory Judgment on Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether objections to interrogatories 4, 5, 7 and 9 were well founded where they referred to imputations rather than the matter published.' 'Whether the defendant should be directed to answer interrogatories 12 and 17 concerning material and information in its possession for its s 22 defence.' 'Whether the defendant should be ordered to answer interrogatories 13 and 14.' 'Whether the defendant was in default in the form of its answers under Pt 34 r 6.' 'What costs order should be made on the interrogatories application.']

Ratio Decidendi

Applying presently accepted doctrine, the objections to interrogatories 4, 5, 7 and 9 were well founded insofar as they were framed by reference to imputations, but the defendant was required to answer them as if framed by reference to the matter published. Interrogatories 12 and 17 were legitimate because they related to the defendant's s 22 defence. The defendant was not required to answer interrogatories 13 or 14, and was not in default under Pt 34 r 6. Because the application relating to the interrogatories was effectively a draw, each party was to pay its own costs.

Court Disposition

Application concerning interrogatories partially allowed; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • ['The defendant is directed to provide answers to interrogatories 4, 5, 7 and 9 as if framed in the usual way without reference to imputations but with reference to the matter published, within 14 days of 11 June 1999.' 'The defendant is directed to provide answers to interrogatories 12 and 17 within 14 days.' 'The...