Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 1301

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 1301

Documents 14 and 16 were admitted because the material provided a sufficient basis, despite reservations, to treat them as potentially probative hostile reaction evidence connected with the publication and contemporaneity; document 21 was admitted on the same basis as other evidence, with weight left for argument. Documents 17, 18 and 19 were not admitted because the Court was not persuaded as to date or as to a sufficient subjective reaction arising out of the publication, or because an excluding inference applied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Evidentiary Ruling on Admissibility of Tendered Documents
Outcome
Some tendered documents were admitted and others were marked for identification.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Documents' 'hostile Reaction Evidence' 'contemporaneity' 'tendered Documents']
['defamation' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Documents' 'hostile Reaction Evidence' 'contemporaneity' 'tendered Documents']

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 / Evidentiary Ruling on Admissibility of Tendered Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether tendered documents were admissible as evidence of hostile reaction to the plaintiff founded upon the relevant publication sued upon and bearing some contemporaneity with it.']

Ratio Decidendi

Documents 14 and 16 were admitted because the material provided a sufficient basis, despite reservations, to treat them as potentially probative hostile reaction evidence connected with the publication and contemporaneity; document 21 was admitted on the same basis as other evidence, with weight left for argument. Documents 17, 18 and 19 were not admitted because the Court was not persuaded as to date or as to a sufficient subjective reaction arising out of the publication, or because an excluding inference applied.

Court Disposition

Some tendered documents were admitted and others were marked for identification.

Orders

  • ['Documents admitted out of the bundle were admitted as Exhibit O.' 'Documents not admitted were bundled together and marked for identification 46.']