Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 384

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 384

The Court held that the necessary foundation had not been laid to cross-examine Mr Quail about alleged benefits to witnesses other than Mr Elomari, because those witnesses had not clearly been confronted with an allegation that their evidence was biased by reason of the benefits. In relation to Mr Elomari, however, the allegation of a bribe and bias had been clearly put, and there was sufficient reference to Mr Quail's connection with the arrangements; cross-examination of Mr Quail was therefore permitted only as to Mr Elomari.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceeding / Ex Tempore Ruling on Proposed Cross Examination
Outcome
Cross-examination of Mr Quail permitted in relation to Mr Elomari only, and not in relation to any other witness.
Legal Topics
['cross Examination' 'witness Bias' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'benefits or Payments to Witnesses']
['evidence' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['cross Examination' 'witness Bias' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'benefits or Payments to Witnesses']

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 Proceeding / Ex Tempore Ruling on Proposed Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Quail could be cross-examined about payments made or benefits proffered by the defendant to various defendant witnesses for the purpose of establishing bias.' 'Whether the necessary groundwork had been laid with the relevant witnesses by putting to them that alleged benefits rendered their evidence favourable to the defendant or biased.' 'Whether cross-examination of Mr Quail was permissible concerning Mr Elomari, given the allegations put to Mr Elomari about an agreement, money and a bribe.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the necessary foundation had not been laid to cross-examine Mr Quail about alleged benefits to witnesses other than Mr Elomari, because those witnesses had not clearly been confronted with an allegation that their evidence was biased by reason of the benefits. In relation to Mr Elomari, however, the allegation of a bribe and bias had been clearly put, and there was sufficient reference to Mr Quail's connection with the arrangements; cross-examination of Mr Quail was therefore permitted only as to Mr Elomari.

Court Disposition

Cross-examination of Mr Quail permitted in relation to Mr Elomari only, and not in relation to any other witness.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff may cross-examine Mr Quail in relation to Mr Elomari.' 'Cross-examination of Mr Quail is not permitted in relation to other witnesses.']