CITATION: Amalgamated Television Services v Marsden [1999] NSWCA 312 FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40400/99 HEARING DATE(S): 17 August 1999 JUDGMENT DATE:
17 August 1999PARTIES :
Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd
v
John MarsdenJUDGMENT OF: Mason P; Meagher JA; Handley JA
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : CLD 20223/95
CLD 20592/96LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Levine J
COUNSEL: C: JS Wheelhouse: RC Titterton
O: G O'L Reynolds SC; RG McHughSOLICITORS: C: Mallesons Stephen Jaques, Sydney
O: Phillips Fox, SydneyCATCHWORDS: Discretionary interlocutory order - Leave to appeal refused CASES CITED: Re the Will of Gilbert (1946) 46 SR (NSW) 318 DECISION: Summons dismissed with costs
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL1 THE COURT: This application concerns a discretionary order in relation to the temporary withholding of leave to inspect documents produced on subpoena by a third party. It is clear that the matter can be revisited if the plaintiff gave evidence in advance of the witnesses referred to by pseudonyms or in the context of an application for inspection following discovery. In saying this, we are not inferring error on the trial judge's part. 2 Paragraph 60 of the judgment below indicates that the primary judge was persuaded at this stage of the proceedings that the material would not advance the defendant's case. No doubt this was because his Honour had inspected the documents. There is no reason to think that his Honour would ignore this factor if, in changed circumstances, the application for inspection were renewed. 3 Applying the well-known principles stated by Jordan CJ in Re the Will of Gilbert (1946) 46 SR(NSW) 318 we refuse leave to appeal. 4 The summons is dismissed with costs.
CA 40399/99
CLD 20223/95
CLD 20592/96
MASON P
MEAGHER JA
HANDLEY JA
Tuesday, 17 August 1999AMALGAMATED TELEVISION
SERVICES PTY LTD v John MARSDENJUDGMENT
* * * * * * * * *
Details
- AGLC
- Amalgamated Television Services v Marsden [1999] NSWCA 312
- Case
- [1999] NSWCA 312
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd (ATS) sought leave to appeal from an interlocutory order made by a single judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The precise nature of the dispute between ATS and the respondent, Marsden, is not detailed in the provided text, but the context indicates it involved a matter where an interlocutory order had been made. The application for leave to appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, comprising Mason P, Meagher and Handley JJA.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether to grant leave to appeal from the discretionary interlocutory order. This required the Court to consider the principles governing appeals from interlocutory decisions, particularly those involving a judge's discretion. The Court had to assess whether there were sufficient grounds to interfere with the primary judge's exercise of discretion.
The Court of Appeal ultimately refused leave to appeal. While the specific reasoning is not elaborated upon in the provided text, the refusal indicates that the Court found no error in the primary judge's exercise of discretion that would warrant appellate intervention. The principles applied would have involved a high threshold for overturning discretionary interlocutory orders, generally requiring demonstration of a material error of law or a wholly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
The summons for leave to appeal was dismissed, and Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd was ordered to pay the costs of the application.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether to grant leave to appeal from the discretionary interlocutory order. This required the Court to consider the principles governing appeals from interlocutory decisions, particularly those involving a judge's discretion. The Court had to assess whether there were sufficient grounds to interfere with the primary judge's exercise of discretion.
The Court of Appeal ultimately refused leave to appeal. While the specific reasoning is not elaborated upon in the provided text, the refusal indicates that the Court found no error in the primary judge's exercise of discretion that would warrant appellate intervention. The principles applied would have involved a high threshold for overturning discretionary interlocutory orders, generally requiring demonstration of a material error of law or a wholly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
The summons for leave to appeal was dismissed, and Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd was ordered to pay the costs of the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
Summons dismissed with costs
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.