Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 752

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 752

Although the court had power to grant leave, the defendant's asserted bases did not justify a subpoena after the close of evidence. The plaintiff's televised comments were not evidence, were insufficient to warrant further inquiry into credibility or damages, and had to be viewed against the constrained structure of the trial. The subpoena was directed to a third party media organisation and could create additional complications. In combination, those factors meant that the interests of justice and finality were better served by refusing leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Defendant's Application for Leave to Issue a Subpoena to the ABC After the Evidence in the Trial Had Concluded and Directions Had Been Given for Written Submissions
Outcome
Defendant's application for leave to issue a subpoena to the ABC declined.
Legal Topics
['leave to Issue Subpoena' 're Opening a Case After Evidence Closed' 'fresh Evidence' 'finality of Hearing' 'third Party Media Subpoena' 'damages and Credibility']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['leave to Issue Subpoena' 're Opening a Case After Evidence Closed' 'fresh Evidence' 'finality of Hearing' 'third Party Media Subpoena' 'damages and Credibility']

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 Issue a Subpoena to the ABC After the Evidence in the Trial Had Concluded and Directions Had Been Given for Written Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to the defendant to issue a subpoena to the ABC for material relating to The 7.30 Report and Lateline broadcasts on 20 July 2000.' "Whether the plaintiff's participation in The 7.30 Report, after the conclusion of evidence, justified further evidentiary steps or possible re-opening of the defendant's case." 'Whether material from a third party media organisation should be subpoenaed in circumstances where the trial evidence had concluded.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the court had power to grant leave, the defendant's asserted bases did not justify a subpoena after the close of evidence. The plaintiff's televised comments were not evidence, were insufficient to warrant further inquiry into credibility or damages, and had to be viewed against the constrained structure of the trial. The subpoena was directed to a third party media organisation and could create additional complications. In combination, those factors meant that the interests of justice and finality were better served by refusing leave.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for leave to issue a subpoena to the ABC declined.

Orders

  • ['Leave to issue the subpoena refused.' "Costs to be the plaintiff's costs in the cause."]