Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 79

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 79

Exhibit 42, being an agreement between Mr Elomari and the defendant, once tendered in open court, does not attract confidentiality as it contains nothing that requires secrecy and falls into the same category as any other exhibit in the case.

Parties
Plaintiff: John Marsden; Defendant: Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Application for Confidentiality Order Regarding Exhibit
Outcome
Application for confidentiality order refused
Legal Topics
Confidentiality Orders, Public Access to Court Documents, Exhibits in Court Proceedings
Defamation Confidentiality Orders Public Access to Court Documents Exhibits in Court Proceedings

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Marsden

Plaintiff

Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Application for Confidentiality Order Regarding Exhibit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exhibit 42 (agreement between Mr Elomari and the defendant) should be subject to a confidentiality order

Ratio Decidendi

Exhibit 42, being an agreement between Mr Elomari and the defendant, once tendered in open court, does not attract confidentiality as it contains nothing that requires secrecy and falls into the same category as any other exhibit in the case.

Court Disposition

Application for confidentiality order refused

Orders

  • No confidentiality order is made with respect to exhibit 42.