Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 444

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 444

The evidence relied on by the plaintiff and the remaining annotations were discrete from each other, and nothing had occurred to trigger s 126 of the Evidence Act. The exposure of part of privileged material did not, in the circumstances, require disclosure of the balance. The defendant's privilege claim was therefore upheld for the remaining annotations, subject to the concession for the exposed annotation material.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Notice of Motion by Defendant Asserting Legal Advice Privilege and Litigation Privilege in Relation to Annotations on a Draft Script
Outcome
Order one in the notice of motion was made.
Legal Topics
['legal Advice Privilege' 'litigation Privilege' 'waiver of Privilege' 'pre Publication Advice']
['evidence' 'defamation'] ['legal Advice Privilege' 'litigation Privilege' 'waiver of Privilege' 'pre Publication Advice']

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 / Notice of Motion by Defendant Asserting Legal Advice Privilege and Litigation Privilege in Relation to Annotations on a Draft Script

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether annotations recording communications in respect of a draft script were protected by legal advice privilege under s 118 of the Evidence Act and litigation privilege under s 119.' 'Whether privilege had been waived by the operation of s 124(4) and s 126 of the Evidence Act in light of evidence given by Messrs McClellan and Manning and the admission of Exhibit 140.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence relied on by the plaintiff and the remaining annotations were discrete from each other, and nothing had occurred to trigger s 126 of the Evidence Act. The exposure of part of privileged material did not, in the circumstances, require disclosure of the balance. The defendant's privilege claim was therefore upheld for the remaining annotations, subject to the concession for the exposed annotation material.

Court Disposition

Order one in the notice of motion was made.

Orders

  • ['The original script with annotations will be marked MFI 172 and returned to the defendant.' 'The photocopy of that original in the brown envelope sourced in packet 404 will be marked MFI 173 and also returned to the defendant.']