Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 202

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 202

Because Mr Price swore to information received from Mr Olive and relied on that information in support of the defendant's pseudonym motion, privilege was waived to the extent of material recording the information disclosed in paragraphs 2, 4 and part of 5 of his affidavit. The plaintiff also had a direct interest in the inter partes pseudonym motion and therefore had standing to be heard.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceeding / Interlocutory Ruling on Defendant's Claim for Privilege in Response to Notice to Produce, Ancillary to Notice of Motion for Pseudonym Order
Outcome
Privilege claim upheld in part and rejected in part; limited inspection permitted.
Legal Topics
['legal Professional Privilege' 'waiver of Privilege' 'notice to Produce' 'pseudonym Order' 'witness Anonymity']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence' 'defamation'] ['legal Professional Privilege' 'waiver of Privilege' 'notice to Produce' 'pseudonym Order' 'witness Anonymity']

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 / Interlocutory Ruling on Defendant's Claim for Privilege in Response to Notice to Produce, Ancillary to Notice of Motion for Pseudonym Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant's claim for privilege over documents called for by the plaintiff's notice to produce had been waived by the affidavit evidence filed in support of the defendant's pseudonym application." "Whether the plaintiff had standing to oppose the defendant's pseudonym motion or be heard on ancillary matters such as privilege."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because Mr Price swore to information received from Mr Olive and relied on that information in support of the defendant's pseudonym motion, privilege was waived to the extent of material recording the information disclosed in paragraphs 2, 4 and part of 5 of his affidavit. The plaintiff also had a direct interest in the inter partes pseudonym motion and therefore had standing to be heard.

Court Disposition

Privilege claim upheld in part and rejected in part; limited inspection permitted.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff has leave to inspect the two documents referred to by the Court, with the earlier document edited by the Court.' 'Photocopies of the two documents available for inspection are to be marked MFI 126.' 'The envelope DCP1 is to be returned to the defendant and kept intact.']