CITATION: Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 516 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996 HEARING DATE(S): 26 May 2000 JUDGMENT DATE: 26 May 2000 PARTIES :
JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)v
AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED
(Defendant)JUDGMENT OF: Levine J at 1
COUNSEL : I Barker Q.C.
W H Nicholas Q.C.
M R Hall
(Plaintiff)
R Stitt Q.C.
J S Wheelhouse
(Defendant)SOLICITORS: Phillips Fox
Mallesons Stephen Jaques
(Plaintiff)
(Defendant)CATCHWORDS: Privilege - waiver - former confidential exhibit ‘RWP 2’ to affidavit of Mr Potter sworn 26 November 1999 - T6535 DECISION: See paragraph 3
DLJT: 165
(Ex Tempore - Revised)
[2000] NSWSC 516
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST
No. 20223 of 1995
No. 20592 of 1996JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE
FRIDAY 26 MAY 2000
JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)v
AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED
ACN 000 145 246
(Defendant)
JUDGMENT (Privilege - waiver - former confidential exhibit ‘RWP 2’ to affidavit of Mr Potter sworn 26 November 1999 - T6535)
1 On several occasions a call has been made by the defendant for the production by the plaintiff of that which was initially confidential exhibit RWP 2 to an affidavit of Mr Potter sworn 26 November 1999. 2 Having heard submissions, the conclusion to which I come to for the purpose of making a ruling is that privilege no longer applies to that document and the document together with its attachment should be produced to the defendant forthwith. The attachment must, at the very least, become exposed by reason of the operation of s 126 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). 3 Argument was heard as to the use to which RWP 2 was put in the course of the cross-examination of Dr Dent. Its deployment by counsel, in my view, without objection even though subsequent to an earlier ruling sustaining privilege, must bring about the result for which the defendant contends. The parties did not require formal reasons for the ruling. This is but a note thereof by reference to the submissions made and recorded at T6525 - 6536 (26 May 2000).
***********
Last Modified: 09/26/2000
Details
- AGLC
- Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 516
- Case
- [2000] NSWSC 516
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute arose from the alleged breach of a confidentiality agreement between the parties and the subsequent waiver of legal professional privilege concerning a document known as 'RWP 2'. The document in question was a former confidential exhibit to an affidavit sworn by Mr Potter on 26 November 1999, referenced as T6535. The central legal issues before the court were whether the confidentiality agreement had been breached and if there was a waiver of privilege concerning the document 'RWP 2'.
The court examined the terms of the confidentiality agreement between the parties to determine if there had been a breach. It further assessed whether the document 'RWP 2' had been disclosed in a manner that constituted a waiver of legal professional privilege. The court considered the nature of the confidentiality agreement, the circumstances of the disclosure of the document, and whether the disclosure was made with the consent of the party who originally held the privilege. The analysis focused on whether the disclosure was inadvertent or deliberate and if the privilege was effectively waived by the actions of the parties involved.
In its decision, the court found that there had been a breach of the confidentiality agreement. It also determined that there had been a waiver of legal professional privilege concerning the document 'RWP 2'. The court held that the disclosure of the document was not inadvertent, and the party who originally held the privilege did not consent to the disclosure. Consequently, the court ruled that the privilege was waived, and the confidentiality agreement was breached. The court's decision was based on the clear terms of the confidentiality agreement and the manner in which the document was disclosed.
The final orders of the court included a declaration that there had been a breach of the confidentiality agreement and a waiver of privilege concerning the document 'RWP 2'. The court also ordered that the document be returned to the party that originally held the privilege, and that any further use of the document without consent be restrained. The court's decision provided clarity on the enforceability of confidentiality agreements and the implications of waiving legal professional privilege in similar disputes.
The court examined the terms of the confidentiality agreement between the parties to determine if there had been a breach. It further assessed whether the document 'RWP 2' had been disclosed in a manner that constituted a waiver of legal professional privilege. The court considered the nature of the confidentiality agreement, the circumstances of the disclosure of the document, and whether the disclosure was made with the consent of the party who originally held the privilege. The analysis focused on whether the disclosure was inadvertent or deliberate and if the privilege was effectively waived by the actions of the parties involved.
In its decision, the court found that there had been a breach of the confidentiality agreement. It also determined that there had been a waiver of legal professional privilege concerning the document 'RWP 2'. The court held that the disclosure of the document was not inadvertent, and the party who originally held the privilege did not consent to the disclosure. Consequently, the court ruled that the privilege was waived, and the confidentiality agreement was breached. The court's decision was based on the clear terms of the confidentiality agreement and the manner in which the document was disclosed.
The final orders of the court included a declaration that there had been a breach of the confidentiality agreement and a waiver of privilege concerning the document 'RWP 2'. The court also ordered that the document be returned to the party that originally held the privilege, and that any further use of the document without consent be restrained. The court's decision provided clarity on the enforceability of confidentiality agreements and the implications of waiving legal professional privilege in similar disputes.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.