SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Booth v Navarro |
Citation: | [2017] ACTSC 353 |
Hearing Date: | 2 November 2017 |
DecisionDate: | 23 November 2017 |
Before: | McWilliam AsJ |
Decision: | See [147] |
Catchwords: | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Interrogatories – whether relevant and necessary – power to amend – whether ‘fishing’ – whether matter of opinion – knowledge, information and belief – scope of obligation on individual to make enquiries |
Legislation Cited: | Court Procedures Act 2004 s 5A Court Procedures Rules 2006 rr 630, 631, 632, 634 |
Cases Cited: | Abreu v Thomas Peacock & Sons Pty Ltd [No 2] [2012] WADC 10 Adams v Dickeson [1974] VR 77 |
Parties: | Susan Maree Booth (Plaintiff) David Navarro (First… |
Continue reading Booth v Navarro
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Booth v Navarro [2017] ACTSC 353
- Case
- [2017] ACTSC 353
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to decide whether the interrogatories were relevant and necessary, whether there was a power to amend them, and whether the interrogatories amounted to a 'fishing' exercise. Additionally, the court examined the scope of an individual's obligation to make enquiries and the difference between knowledge, information, and belief. The court had to determine whether these matters were ones of opinion or if there was a clear legal standard by which to assess them.
The court found that the interrogatories in question were not relevant and necessary, and therefore, not in compliance with the rules. It held that the power to amend interrogatories was not unlimited and could be subject to review by the court. The court concluded that the interrogatories constituted a fishing exercise, which was impermissible. Regarding the scope of an individual's obligation to make enquiries, the court held that there was a duty to make reasonable enquiries where the individual had actual or constructive knowledge of the matter. The distinction between knowledge, information, and belief was also addressed, with the court finding that each term had a specific meaning that could be objectively assessed.
The final orders of the court included a declaration that the interrogatories were not relevant and necessary, a prohibition against the defendant from serving further interrogatories without leave of the court, and an order for the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs associated with the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [147]
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.