Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 267

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 267

Because the s 125 issue raised matters of the utmost gravity affecting the Commissioner and his legal advisers, and because the Commissioner needed access to the relevant transcript and revised judgment to prepare his position, the Court adjourned the matter to 2pm and acceded to the Commissioner's application to that limited extent while rejecting the defendant's attempt to exclude the s 125 component from cross-examination.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Defamation List Proceeding / Application by Commissioner of Police to Adjourn Cross Examination of Messrs Angus, Bell and Woodhouse
Outcome
Application acceded to in part; matter adjourned to 2pm.
Legal Topics
['privilege' 'subpoena' 'cross Examination' 'adjournment' 'evidence Act S 125']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure' 'defamation'] ['privilege' 'subpoena' 'cross Examination' 'adjournment' 'evidence Act S 125']

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 List Proceeding / Application by Commissioner of Police to Adjourn Cross Examination of Messrs Angus, Bell and Woodhouse

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether cross-examination should be adjourned to allow the Commissioner of Police to be apprised of and advised about matters arising under s 125 of the Evidence Act.' "Whether the plaintiff's cross-examination should be constrained by eliminating the s 125 component." 'Whether the Commissioner had standing or a sufficient interest to participate in relation to cross-examination concerning privilege issues arising from documents sought from him.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the s 125 issue raised matters of the utmost gravity affecting the Commissioner and his legal advisers, and because the Commissioner needed access to the relevant transcript and revised judgment to prepare his position, the Court adjourned the matter to 2pm and acceded to the Commissioner's application to that limited extent while rejecting the defendant's attempt to exclude the s 125 component from cross-examination.

Court Disposition

Application acceded to in part; matter adjourned to 2pm.

Orders

  • ['Whomsoever is instructing Mr Muddle is to be provided with the transcript of the evidence given by Mr Angus to date and the revised judgment handed down on 25 March.' 'No further application in relation to any component of the litigation will be entertained between now and 2pm.' 'The matter is immediately...