Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 312

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 312

The proposed questioning was relevant and admissible because the Small documents and inquiries about them were information relied on by Mr Hall in deciding to publish, and the prior contact with Superintendent Small could bear on whether the telecast conveyed a false and deliberate impression relevant to the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Admissibility Ruling During Cross Examination
Outcome
Objection overruled; evidence allowed to continue.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'qualified Privilege' 'reasonableness of Publication' 'particularisation' 'cross Examination']
['defamation' 'evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'qualified Privilege' 'reasonableness of Publication' 'particularisation' 'cross Examination']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceedings / Admissibility Ruling During Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff could cross-examine Mr Hall about footage said to convey a deliberately misleading impression concerning Superintendent Small and Channel 7.' 'Whether the plaintiff was required to particularise the allegation about the footage as a matter in defeasance of s 22 or under the rules of court.' "Whether the evidence was relevant and admissible to the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct in publishing the matter complained of."]

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed questioning was relevant and admissible because the Small documents and inquiries about them were information relied on by Mr Hall in deciding to publish, and the prior contact with Superintendent Small could bear on whether the telecast conveyed a false and deliberate impression relevant to the reasonableness of the defendant's publication; in the circumstances the plaintiff was not obliged to have particularised the line of cross-examination beforehand.

Court Disposition

Objection overruled; evidence allowed to continue.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff was permitted to continue cross-examining Mr Hall on the subject matter by reference to videotapes of the confrontation between Mr Quail and Superintendent Small in the street.' 'The defendant was to be protected in terms of any objection it might otherwise have taken to a line of questioning...