Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 78

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 78

The order was refused because Mr Elomari had indicated to authorities that he no longer wanted protection of his identity as an informer by a public interest immunity claim, and had entered into a private agreement with the defendant for relocation and security. In those circumstances, requiring him to give all his...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Defendant's Application Under Supreme Court Act 1970 S 80 for a Closed Court During Part of Mr Elomari's Evidence
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['closed Court Application' 'informer Identity' 'public Interest Immunity' 'ends of Justice' 'evidence in Camera']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'open Justice'] ['closed Court Application' 'informer Identity' 'public Interest Immunity' 'ends of Justice' 'evidence in Camera']

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 / Defendant's Application Under Supreme Court Act 1970 S 80 for a Closed Court During Part of Mr Elomari's Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should order that so much of Mr Elomari's evidence-in-chief as would disclose that he had been an informer be given in camera under Supreme Court Act 1970 s 80." 'Whether the presence of the public during evidence about Mr Elomari being an informer would defeat the ends of justice where he had indicated he no longer wanted his identity protected and had entered into a private relocation agreement with the defendant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The order was refused because Mr Elomari had indicated to authorities that he no longer wanted protection of his identity as an informer by a public interest immunity claim, and had entered into a private agreement with the defendant for relocation and security. In those circumstances, requiring him to give all his evidence in open court would not defeat the ends of justice; rather, granting the order would defeat the ends of justice by allowing him both private protection and public suppression.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['The application to lead evidence from Mr Elomari in closed court as to his being an informer is refused.' 'Exhibit 1, the agreement, continues to have the benefit of the restrictions as to access and publication that had hitherto applied.']