Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 1299

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 1299

The Court would entertain Corrs Chambers Westgarth's costs motion because Corrs had successfully moved for relief in relation to the subpoena and the defendant's attempt to obtain appellate intervention had failed; the defendant's objections did not justify refusing to hear the motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceeding; Application by Subpoenaed Non Party for Costs / Notice of Motion by Corrs Chambers Westgarth for Costs; Preliminary Question Whether the Court Should Entertain the Motion
Outcome
The Court determined that it would hear Corrs Chambers Westgarth's Notice of Motion for costs, with the timing and manner of the hearing to be determined.
Legal Topics
['subpoena to Produce Documents' 'non Party Costs of Complying With or Challenging Subpoena' 'discovery and Inspection' 'leave to Appeal']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'defamation'] ['subpoena to Produce Documents' 'non Party Costs of Complying With or Challenging Subpoena' 'discovery and Inspection' 'leave to Appeal']

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; Application by Subpoenaed Non Party for Costs / Notice of Motion by Corrs Chambers Westgarth for Costs; Preliminary Question Whether the Court Should Entertain the Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should entertain Corrs Chambers Westgarth's Notice of Motion seeking costs in relation to the subpoena served on it and its successful application concerning production and inspection." "Whether the defendant's objections, including absence of a costs assessment, possible future inspection, and possible discovery issues between plaintiff and defendant, should prevent the motion being heard."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court would entertain Corrs Chambers Westgarth's costs motion because Corrs had successfully moved for relief in relation to the subpoena and the defendant's attempt to obtain appellate intervention had failed; the defendant's objections did not justify refusing to hear the motion.

Court Disposition

The Court determined that it would hear Corrs Chambers Westgarth's Notice of Motion for costs, with the timing and manner of the hearing to be determined.

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion filed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth in May 1999 will be heard.' 'Mr Lee and Mr Wheelhouse were invited to assist the Court in determining when and how the motion can be dealt with.']