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']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Admissibility Ruling on Collateral Facts Evidence
Legal Issues
- 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.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment