Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 1061

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 1061

The plaintiff did not establish any sufficient reason, whether based on fairness, the seriousness of the imputations, alleged double jeopardy, concerns about witnesses, or uncertainty in his representation, to depart from the normal course of cross-examination in the defamation proceedings or from the approach taken in the earlier judgment; making the orders sought would improperly intrude into matters for the plaintiff's own forensic decision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Defamation Action / Interlocutory Notice of Motion Concerning the Structure of Trial and Cross Examination
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['cross Examination' 'justification Defence' 'damages' 'interlocutory Application' 'litigant in Person']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['cross Examination' 'justification Defence' 'damages' 'interlocutory Application' 'litigant in Person']

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 Action / Interlocutory Notice of Motion Concerning the Structure of Trial and Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should not be cross-examined by the defendant until after all defence evidence on truth defences in both actions had been heard.' "Whether, alternatively, the plaintiff's cross-examination after giving evidence on damages should be limited to damages, with cross-examination on truth deferred until after he gave evidence on the truth question." 'Whether fairness, the gravity of the imputations, alleged double jeopardy, anticipated defence evidence, or uncertainty about legal representation justified departing from the normal course of a defamation trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff did not establish any sufficient reason, whether based on fairness, the seriousness of the imputations, alleged double jeopardy, concerns about witnesses, or uncertainty in his representation, to depart from the normal course of cross-examination in the defamation proceedings or from the approach taken in the earlier judgment; making the orders sought would improperly intrude into matters for the plaintiff's own forensic decision.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion is dismissed.']