Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 52

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 52

Leave to amend was refused because the proposed amendment was an extraordinary and substantial departure from the defendant's long-standing pleaded particulars, expanding the alleged period from approximately two months to approximately eighteen months; it was sought very late, after the witness had commenced evidence, and the plaintiff was entitled to rely on the case as particularised. Refusal did not shut the defendant out from pursuing its existing truth case, while allowing the amendment would cause unfairness, prejudice and disadvantage to the plaintiff.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Defendant's Application for Leave to Amend Case on Justification During Trial
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['leave to Amend Particulars' 'justification or Truth Defence' 'particulars of Truth' 'prejudice and Forensic Surprise']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['leave to Amend Particulars' 'justification or Truth Defence' 'particulars of Truth' 'prejudice and Forensic Surprise']

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 Proceedings / Defendant's Application for Leave to Amend Case on Justification During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant should be granted leave to amend its particulars of truth concerning Mr Edward Stals from an alleged period of approximately two months from mid 1976 to a period from mid 1975 to 6 December 1976.' 'Whether the proposed amendment would cause unfairness, prejudice or disadvantage to the plaintiff at the stage when the witness had commenced evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was refused because the proposed amendment was an extraordinary and substantial departure from the defendant's long-standing pleaded particulars, expanding the alleged period from approximately two months to approximately eighteen months; it was sought very late, after the witness had commenced evidence, and the plaintiff was entitled to rely on the case as particularised. Refusal did not shut the defendant out from pursuing its existing truth case, while allowing the amendment would cause unfairness, prejudice and disadvantage to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to amend is refused.']