Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 87

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 87

The directions sought by the defendant—requiring the jury to decide consecutively and separately, withholding the imputations until after viewing, limiting replay and use of videotape, and withholding transcripts—are not warranted either as a matter of binding authority or principle. The objective test and the jury’s function safeguard the process; excessive emphasis on preserving the ‘initial impression’ risks distorting the jury's true role.

Parties
Plaintiff: John Marsden; Defendant: Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Application in Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory; Application for Directions as to Presentation of Case to Jury
Outcome
Application for directions refused (in terms sought by defendant)
Legal Topics
Directions to Jury, Jury Procedure, Presentation of Evidence in Defamation, Transient Publication, Video Evidence, Imputations
Defamation Directions to Jury Jury Procedure Presentation of Evidence in Defamation Transient Publication Video Evidence Imputations

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Marsden

Plaintiff

Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application in Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory; Application for Directions as to Presentation of Case to Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should give directions regulating the order and manner in which evidence is presented to the jury in relation to alleged defamatory TV broadcasts, notably directions about when and how the jury learns the pleaded imputations, use of videotapes, and supply of transcripts.

Ratio Decidendi

The directions sought by the defendant—requiring the jury to decide consecutively and separately, withholding the imputations until after viewing, limiting replay and use of videotape, and withholding transcripts—are not warranted either as a matter of binding authority or principle. The objective test and the jury’s function safeguard the process; excessive emphasis on preserving the ‘initial impression’ risks distorting the jury's true role.

Court Disposition

Application for directions refused (in terms sought by defendant)

Orders

  • Court declines to give the directions in paragraphs 1 to 5 as referred to in Mallesons Stephen Jaques letter dated 16 February 1999.