Rivkin v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 921

Rivkin v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 921

Interrogatory 19 related to a matter in issue and was not unnecessary because, although the defendant need not prove that it held the opinion represented by the imputation to establish the Queensland defence, the fact that it did not hold that opinion could still relate to matters in defeasance of that defence, including absence of good faith. Interrogatory 21 was also permissible because it sought admissions about alleged conduct outside the courtroom that could potentially be relevant to aggravated damages, and the Court could not conclude at the interrogatories stage that an answer would be inadmissible or unarguably without foundation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Application Concerning Plaintiff's Proposed Interrogatories After Jury Determination of Issues Under S 7 a of the Defamation Act 1974
Outcome
Leave granted to administer interrogatories 19 and 21; defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application; matter listed for directions.
Legal Topics
['interrogatories' 'defence Under S 377(8) Criminal Code Act (qld) 1899' 'good Faith' 'aggravated Damages' 'conduct of Counsel Outside Court']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['interrogatories' 'defence Under S 377(8) Criminal Code Act (qld) 1899' 'good Faith' 'aggravated Damages' 'conduct of Counsel Outside Court']

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 / Application Concerning Plaintiff's Proposed Interrogatories After Jury Determination of Issues Under S 7 a of the Defamation Act 1974

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant was required to answer interrogatory 19 asking whether, at the time of publication, the pleaded imputation represented the opinion of the defendant by its servants or agents.' 'Whether the plaintiff should have leave to administer interrogatory 21 concerning an alleged statement by Senior Counsel for the defendant to the media after the s 7A trial.' 'Whether the alleged statement by Senior Counsel outside Court could be relevant to aggravated damages.']

Ratio Decidendi

Interrogatory 19 related to a matter in issue and was not unnecessary because, although the defendant need not prove that it held the opinion represented by the imputation to establish the Queensland defence, the fact that it did not hold that opinion could still relate to matters in defeasance of that defence, including absence of good faith. Interrogatory 21 was also permissible because it sought admissions about alleged conduct outside the courtroom that could potentially be relevant to aggravated damages, and the Court could not conclude at the interrogatories stage that an answer would be inadmissible or unarguably without foundation.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to administer interrogatories 19 and 21; defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application; matter listed for directions.

Orders

  • ['Insofar as the plaintiff requires leave to administer the interrogatories identified as 19 and 21, leave is granted.' 'The plaintiff is directed to deliver those interrogatories, as amended as required, within 14 days.' 'The defendant is directed to deliver verified answers thereto within 14 days.' "The defendant...