Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 160

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 160

The application was declined because the earlier ruling of 16 December 1999 refusing a pseudonym order remained valid, unstayed and effective, and it would be an extreme and unjustified step to close the court to the public in order to achieve a result contrary to that existing ruling.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceeding / Interlocutory Application by the Defendant for a Pseudonym Order Or, Alternatively, for Evidence to Be Heard in Camera
Outcome
Application declined.
Legal Topics
['pseudonym Application' 'in Camera Hearing' 'open Court Principle' 'witness Evidence' 'effect of Unstayed Prior Ruling']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation Proceeding / Interlocutory Application by the Defendant for a Pseudonym Order Or, Alternatively, for Evidence to Be Heard in Camera

  1. 1 ['Whether the identity of the person in respect of whom Mr Ball was to give evidence should be protected by the application of a pseudonym.' "Whether Mr Ball's evidence should alternatively be heard in camera." 'Whether the court should make orders inconsistent with the existing unstayed ruling of 16 December 1999 declining a pseudonym order in relation to Mr Olive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was declined because the earlier ruling of 16 December 1999 refusing a pseudonym order remained valid, unstayed and effective, and it would be an extreme and unjustified step to close the court to the public in order to achieve a result contrary to that existing ruling.

Court Disposition

Application declined.

Orders

  • ['The application is declined.']