Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 133

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 133

NP1 was set aside because it related to an inchoate confidentiality issue and no current proceeding or application concerning confidentiality was on foot. NP2 was set aside because, although width alone was insufficient, the asserted relevance depended on an unsupported allegation about the defendant's motive and the notice was a dragnet with ambiguity. NP3 was not defective in form and required compliance, subject to excluding police statements already delivered by the defendant or inspected after production by the New South Wales Police Service. NP4 was mostly a request for general discovery, but statements made in open court showed discrete communications between the defendant and the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Hearing of Defendant's Notice of Motion Dated 26 February 1999 to Set Aside Four Notices to Produce Served by the Plaintiff
Outcome
Defendant's motion to set aside four Notices to Produce was granted in part.
Legal Topics
['notices to Produce' 'subpoenas' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'public Interest Immunity' 'confidentiality Orders' 'amendment of Defence']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['notices to Produce' 'subpoenas' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'public Interest Immunity' 'confidentiality Orders' 'amendment of Defence']

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 / Interlocutory Hearing of Defendant's Notice of Motion Dated 26 February 1999 to Set Aside Four Notices to Produce Served by the Plaintiff

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether NP1 concerning confidentiality should be set aside where no current application concerning confidentiality was on foot.' 'Whether NP2 concerning adjournment should be set aside as a dragnet Notice to Produce unsupported by a sufficient foundation of relevance.' 'Whether NP3 concerning witness statements should be set aside or complied with subject to limitations for police statements already provided or inspected.' 'Whether NP4 concerning the police subpoena should be set aside wholly or partly as general discovery or fishing, and whether any discrete category should be produced.']

Ratio Decidendi

NP1 was set aside because it related to an inchoate confidentiality issue and no current proceeding or application concerning confidentiality was on foot. NP2 was set aside because, although width alone was insufficient, the asserted relevance depended on an unsupported allegation about the defendant's motive and the notice was a dragnet with ambiguity. NP3 was not defective in form and required compliance, subject to excluding police statements already delivered by the defendant or inspected after production by the New South Wales Police Service. NP4 was mostly a request for general discovery, but statements made in open court showed discrete communications between the defendant and the...

Court Disposition

Defendant's motion to set aside four Notices to Produce was granted in part.

Orders

  • ['Notice to Produce (NP1) dated 22 February 1999 is set aside.' 'Notice to Produce (NP2) dated 23 February 1999 is set aside.' 'As to Notice to Produce (NP3) dated 24 February 1999 the defendant is to comply therewith save for the production of statements to the police of the persons named in NP3 and which...