Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 1110

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 1110

The plaintiff was not entitled to inspect the masked pre-publication diary entries because the masking did not affect the ready comprehensibility of the exposed relevant portions and was accepted as done in the interests of privacy and confidentiality. For the post-publication diaries, the Court could not determine the competing claims of privilege, confidentiality and irrelevance without seeing the documents, and therefore directed production to the Court for judicial inspection.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceeding; Application for Inspection of Defendant's Discovered Documents / Notice of Motion for Inspection Under SCR Pt 23 R 10(1)(d)
Outcome
Application refused in respect of the pre-publication diary; defendant ordered to produce the post-publication diaries to the Court for inspection by the judge; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['discovery' 'inspection of Documents' 'masking for Irrelevance' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'confidential Communications and Confidential Documents']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence' 'defamation'] ['discovery' 'inspection of Documents' 'masking for Irrelevance' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'confidential Communications and Confidential Documents']

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; Application for Inspection of Defendant's Discovered Documents / Notice of Motion for Inspection Under SCR Pt 23 R 10(1)(d)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be permitted to inspect masked portions of the pre-publication diary of Greg Quail that the defendant marked as irrelevant.' 'Whether post-publication diaries of Greg Quail should be withheld from inspection on grounds of privilege, confidentiality or irrelevance.' "Whether the Court should inspect the post-publication diaries to determine the parties' competing claims."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was not entitled to inspect the masked pre-publication diary entries because the masking did not affect the ready comprehensibility of the exposed relevant portions and was accepted as done in the interests of privacy and confidentiality. For the post-publication diaries, the Court could not determine the competing claims of privilege, confidentiality and irrelevance without seeing the documents, and therefore directed production to the Court for judicial inspection.

Court Disposition

Application refused in respect of the pre-publication diary; defendant ordered to produce the post-publication diaries to the Court for inspection by the judge; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The application for an inspection order in respect of the pre-publication Diary of Greg Quail is refused.' 'The defendant is to produce to the Court for inspection by me the post-publication Diaries of Greg Quail by 4.00pm on Thursday 18 November 1999.' 'Costs are reserved.']