Atkinson v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group
[2000] WADC 69
JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: ATKINSON -v- AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP [2000] WADC 69
CORAM: REGISTRAR KINGSLEY
HEARD: 22 FEBRUARY 2000
DELIVERED : 15 MARCH 2000
FILE NO/S: CIV 3439 of 1996
BETWEEN: ERIL ATKINSON
Plaintiff
AND
AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP (ACN 005 357 522)
Defendant
Catchwords:
Practice - Interrogatories - Application for further and better answers
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Application allowed in part
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff: Mr D Clyne
Defendant: Mr R Le Miere QC
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Friedman Lurie Singh
Defendant: Greenland Brooksby
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
REGISTRAR KINGSLEY: The plaintiff was employed by the defendant, initially as one of its Personnel Managers, and relevantly, as the Personnel and Training Support Manager of its operations in the State of Western Australia.
In her first statement of claim the plaintiff pleaded that she suffered psychological and/or mental injuries arising from psychological trauma and/or stress caused by the negligent/or deliberate acts or omissions of the defendant during the period 1993 to 1996. The statement of claim at para 6 went on to plead a number of particulars of injuries. Subsequently that statement of claim was expanded substantially such that the re-amended statement of claim dated 11 June 1998 contains substantial matters and the particulars of symptoms have now been carefully particularised. The defendant has filed a defence dated 15 July 1998 where the issues taken up by the plaintiff are carefully dealt with.
The defendant administered interrogatories on 8 November 1999 for answer by the plaintiff. There are 94 sets of questions and some questions have a subset of questions and a subset of the subset. For the most part the plaintiff answered those questions but the defendant has brought an application seeking that the plaintiff provide further and better answers to a number of the interrogatories. The interrogatories fall into three categories: interrogatory 14, interrogatory 15, and the balance of interrogatories the subject of the Chamber Summons.
The function of interrogatories is to enable a party to obtain from the opposite party information on facts material to the questions in dispute between them, and to obtain admissions about those facts. Thus a party may interrogate about matters which go to support their own case or which destroy or impeach their opponent's case. Interrogatories can also serve to narrow the proof of issues raised in pleadings as proof of material facts can be facilitated by admission in answers to interrogatories. Thus the authorities indicate interrogatories may be used for the purpose of obtaining admissions, to ascertain the truth of statements of fact contained in the pleadings, to ascertain what case is to be met at trial or to determine what really is in issue, to interrogate the opponent as to facts supporting the interrogating party's case or to destroy or impeach the opponent's case.
In his submission senior counsel stated that the defendant does not know what the case is they have to meet. Senior counsel for the defendant went on to say that the answers given by the plaintiff were embarrassing in that they were insufficient due to lack of relevant detail. This particularly refers to the interrogatories in the third category where the plaintiff has referred to medical records. The broad theme of the answer to the third category of interrogatory is that the information is in medical records which are discoverable or have been discovered.
Turning to the third category it is the plaintiff's obligation to answer the questions as fully and helpful as possible. If the answer does not provide all the information to which the interrogating party is entitled, that answer is insufficient. Thus the interrogating party must not only answer from their own personal knowledge but is obliged to answer to the best of their knowledge, information and belief. For the purpose of completing answers an interrogating party is obliged to examine documents in their possession, custody or power. The plaintiff has a present right to view the medical reports held by her medical practitioner and I am of the opinion that to sufficiently answer the interrogatories complained of the plaintiff must examine the records.
Interrogatory 14 enquires as to the plaintiff's alcohol consumption between various periods from November 1989 to February 1995. The plaintiff answered the questions by stating that the daily consumption of alcohol was between 0-4 or 0-6 glasses. The defendant says that the answer is meaningless and is therefore insufficient.
The defendant's question asks approximately what quantity of alcohol did the plaintiff consume each day and each week. The plaintiff has answered that question by stating a range. I am of the opinion that the question as asked has been answered by the plaintiff.
Interrogatory 15 enquires for the periods 1989 to February 1995 whether the plaintiff consumed alcohol at the defendant's premises during work hours and if so what quantity and type. The plaintiff has answered that question in the affirmative stating that she consumed wine and approximately one to three glasses on each occasion. The plaintiff then goes on to add as an example of the occasion, executive lunches, Christmas, Melbourne Cup Day, Friday night drinks. The question the defendant is asking is whether the plaintiff consumed any alcohol and if that answer is in the affirmative what was the quantity and type. In my opinion the plaintiff has answered the question as asked and the answer was sufficient.
Accordingly, in my opinion, the plaintiff is to answer those interrogatories other than 14 and 15 as stated in the defendant's Chamber Summons dated 17 January 2000. As the plaintiff must examine medical records I will hear counsel on the time limit to be provided and on the issue of costs.
0
0
0