Cartigney Australia Pty Ltd v Borden Australia Pty Ltd

IN THE FEDERAT. COURT OF AUSTRALIA

)

' GENERAL	DIVISION	)	No. VG 171 of 1985
1

NEW SOUTE

WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY 1

Between:

CARTIGNY

PTY.

LIMITED

And :

BORDEN AUSTRALIA PTY.LIMITED

CORAM: Einfeld J.

PLACE: Sydney

DATE: 19 August 1987

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

Part of this notice of motion deals with the alleged inadequacy of the

answers

the

applicant

the

respondent's

administered

interrogatories.

I have already dealt

argument 'with the matters raised under

interrogatories

and 2, and counsel for the applicant has indicated

that he will comply with and supply the information adumbrated	in.	my
observations and argument.

Paragraphs 10A and 1OC are referred to by counsel for the respondent as

having been inadequately answered. The basis of the argument, as

understand it, is that the applicant has failed to identify the relevant

wholesale market or wholesale price for

raw material as alleged in

its

amended statement of claim, especially

in paragraph 8 thereof.

- 2 -

is comion ground

this case that at the relevant time the

respondent~monopolised the Australian raw material supply, and that the

only alternative supply to that supplied by the respondent would .have

been and was from overseas.

The applicant has indicated that the wholesale market upon which its claim is based is the wholesale market represented by the respondent.

The applicant also alleges that the price

$8.50 per roll for the

clingwrap was to be tested in terms of fairness

and the other criteria

alleged against the price charged from time to time by the respondent.

In those circumstances, and having regard to the detail given

in the so-

called

claims

tables

which

the

applicant

has

supplied

particularisation of its'allegations, it seems to me that there is no

substance to the assertions made

on behalf of the respondent that the

answers to the interrogatories 10A and

1OC are inadequate.

The next objection

taken to interrogatory ll(d) to which the

applicant

has

given

an answer

and

further

clarification

the

respondent's solicitor

in a letter dated

12 August 1987. For the

reaasons given in argument, in my view, the answers given thus far are

adequate.

Objection is also taken to interrogatory ll(i).

find that question

not only multiple

in content but almost impossible to understand. The

rephraseology of it that

I put in argument was ad.:opted by counsel for

the respondent, but

I must observe that that rephraseology is not what

the words actually say

the question.

In terms of the rephrasing

which was adopted during argument, it seems to

me that the matter has

now been adequately dealt with by the applicant

its additional

- 3 -

material supplied by the letter of	12 August 1987 to which	I	have
referred.

The final objection taken is to questions

26, 21 and 32 which are all

interlocked. The confirmation required by question

supplied in

the 12 August letter to which

I have referred, but in respect of the

balance of that question and the two questions referred to, it seems to

me that there is no entitlement to administer interrogatories

in those

terms. The respondent

in its letter to applicant of

3 July sought to

argue the appropriateness of this interrogatory and expanded that

argument today by referring to some matter raised

the defence.

Whilst of course interrogatories may be administered that go to clear

and acknowledged issues

in the matter, I fail to see. on any basis and

with all respect to the advocacy of

Mr. Campbell, that this matter can

be interrogated about at all. It may be that the respondent will be

able to answer some partt of the applicant's claim by the argument

advanced,

but

that

does

not

provide

a basis for administering

interrogatories.

any event,

am unable to see how the actual

questions asked even bear

or would supply relevant material to

support the argument which	M r .	Campbell suggests will arise in the
casse.

In those circumstances and for those reasons,

decline to make the

order

sought in relation

the

interrogatories

which

have

been

identified.

The case of Cartigney Australia Pty Ltd v Borden Australia Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the parties in the Federal Court of Australia, specifically in the General Division of the New South Wales District Registry. The applicant, Cartigney Australia Pty Ltd, sought to address the inadequacy of the responses given by the respondent, Borden Australia Pty Ltd, to certain interrogatories administered in the proceedings. The interrogatories in question pertained to the wholesale market and wholesale price for raw materials, as well as other related matters. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's responses to the interrogatories were adequate, particularly in light of the respondent's contention that the answers were inadequate.

The court examined the responses given by the applicant to interrogatories 10A and 10C, which the respondent argued were inadequately answered. The court considered the context in which the interrogatories were administered, noting that at the relevant time, the respondent held a monopoly over the Australian raw material supply. The applicant claimed that the wholesale market for its purposes was the one represented by the respondent, and that the price of $8.50 per roll for clingwrap was to be tested for fairness. Based on the detailed claims tables provided by the applicant, the court found no substance in the respondent's assertions that the answers were inadequate.

Further, the court reviewed the response to interrogatory 11(d), which had been clarified by the applicant in a letter dated 12 August 1987. The court found the answers provided to be adequate. The court also addressed interrogatory 11(i), which it deemed to be multiple in content and difficult to understand. Although a rephrased version was adopted during the argument, the court noted that it did not accurately reflect the original question. The court concluded that the matter had been adequately addressed by the applicant in its additional material. Finally, the court considered interrogatories 26, 21, and 32, which were found to be inappropriate for administration. The court found that the respondent's argument regarding the appropriateness of the interrogatories did not justify their administration, and that the questions did not bear on or provide relevant material to support the respondent's argument.

In conclusion, the court declined to make the order sought by the respondent in relation to the interrogatories identified. The court found that the applicant's responses were adequate and that the interrogatories in question were either adequately answered, inappropriate for administration, or did not provide relevant material to support the respondent's case.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established