Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 377

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 377

Leave was granted because the proposed amendments were directed to particulars of malice rather than a substantive amendment to the Reply, post-publication events may in principle be relied on to prove malice at the time of publication, and the challenged particulars were not shown to be futile or so prejudicial that leave should be refused, subject to the defendant being protected from an argument based on failure to adduce evidence where no relevant servant or agent was identified.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceeding / Plaintiff's Application to Amend Particulars in Relation to Malice
Outcome
Application granted.
Legal Topics
['particulars of Malice' 'leave to Amend' 'post Publication Conduct' 'privilege Defences' 'corporate Publisher Malice']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['particulars of Malice' 'leave to Amend' 'post Publication Conduct' 'privilege Defences' 'corporate Publisher Malice']

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 / Plaintiff's Application to Amend Particulars in Relation to Malice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend his particulars of malice in each action.' 'Whether post-publication events may be relied upon as evidence of malice at the time of publication to defeat privilege defences.' 'Whether, for a corporate defendant, the pleaded post-publication conduct is connected to a relevant servant or agent responsible for publication.' 'Whether proposed subparagraphs D(d) and D(e) were futile or caused forensic disadvantage to the defendant.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted because the proposed amendments were directed to particulars of malice rather than a substantive amendment to the Reply, post-publication events may in principle be relied on to prove malice at the time of publication, and the challenged particulars were not shown to be futile or so prejudicial that leave should be refused, subject to the defendant being protected from an argument based on failure to adduce evidence where no relevant servant or agent was identified.

Court Disposition

Application granted.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to the plaintiff to file in Court the Particulars of Malice in each action.']