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

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

The proposed evidence of Mr Dunks did not fall within s 106(c) because no prior inconsistent statement could be readily identified, did not fall within s 106(a), and was collateral evidence to evidence which would otherwise be inadmissible under the collateral facts rule; it was therefore not admitted.

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Admissibility Ruling on Collateral Facts Evidence
Outcome
Proposed evidence not admitted.
Legal Topics
['admissibility' 'collateral Facts' 'prior Inconsistent Statements' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 106']
['evidence' 'defamation'] ['admissibility' 'collateral Facts' 'prior Inconsistent Statements' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 106']

Source-derived case record

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Admissibility Ruling on Collateral Facts Evidence

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's proposed evidence from Mr Dunks was admissible under s 106(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." "Whether the plaintiff's proposed evidence from Mr Dunks was admissible under s 106(a) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." 'Whether the proposed evidence was inadmissible collateral evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed evidence of Mr Dunks did not fall within s 106(c) because no prior inconsistent statement could be readily identified, did not fall within s 106(a), and was collateral evidence to evidence which would otherwise be inadmissible under the collateral facts rule; it was therefore not admitted.

Court Disposition

Proposed evidence not admitted.

Orders

  • ['The Court declined to admit the proposed evidence.']