Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 1221

Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 1221

The tender was rejected because the Court could not rationally understand what the ratings documents proved without explanatory evidence; even making assumptions in the plaintiff's favour, the documents were capable of establishing only extent of publication relevant to general compensatory damages; and they did not establish any improper, unjustifiable or bad faith conduct by the defendant necessary for aggravated compensatory damages.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 1999
Procedural Posture
Defamation Action / Plaintiff's Tender of Documents at the Close of the Oral Evidence in the Plaintiff's Case
Outcome
Tender rejected; documents marked for identification.
Legal Topics
['tender of Documents' 'general Compensatory Damages' 'aggravated Damages' 'ratings' 'relevance' 'admissibility' 'extent of Publication']
['defamation' 'evidence'] ['tender of Documents' 'general Compensatory Damages' 'aggravated Damages' 'ratings' 'relevance' 'admissibility' 'extent of Publication']

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 Action / Plaintiff's Tender of Documents at the Close of the Oral Evidence in the Plaintiff's Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Nielsen Media Research and AC Nielsen documents concerning ratings or audience figures were admissible on the issue of extent of publication.' 'Whether the documents were relevant to general compensatory damages.' 'Whether the documents were relevant to aggravated compensatory damages.' 'Whether the documents were intelligible or capable of being understood by the Court without further evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The tender was rejected because the Court could not rationally understand what the ratings documents proved without explanatory evidence; even making assumptions in the plaintiff's favour, the documents were capable of establishing only extent of publication relevant to general compensatory damages; and they did not establish any improper, unjustifiable or bad faith conduct by the defendant necessary for aggravated compensatory damages.

Court Disposition

Tender rejected; documents marked for identification.

Orders

  • ['Document 5 will be MFI 43.' 'Document 6 will be MFI 44.']