Amalgamated Television Services v Marsden [1999] NSWCA 313

Amalgamated Television Services v Marsden [1999] NSWCA 313

Where an appellate court makes clear orders on an interlocutory appeal, issues that could have been but were not raised (for example, by notice of contention) cannot be revisited by the trial judge in subsequent proceedings; fidelity to appellate orders is essential to the proper administration of justice.

Parties
Appellant: Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd; Respondent: John Marsden
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Order (inspection of Documents)
Outcome
Appeal upheld
Legal Topics
Inspection of Documents, Interlocutory Appeal, Client Legal Privilege, Public Interest Immunity, Waind V Hill Discretion

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd

Appellant

John Marsden

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Order (inspection of Documents)

  1. 1 Whether it was open to the trial judge to displace the Court of Appeal's interlocutory order permitting inspection of documents by reference to grounds (public interest immunity, Waind v Hill discretion) that could have been but were not advanced in the Court of Appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

Where an appellate court makes clear orders on an interlocutory appeal, issues that could have been but were not raised (for example, by notice of contention) cannot be revisited by the trial judge in subsequent proceedings; fidelity to appellate orders is essential to the proper administration of justice.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld

Orders

  • Set aside the order made by Levine J on 7 May 1999 in Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 429.
  • Order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings before Levine J that led to those orders.