Coster Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia
[1990] FCA 822
•25 Oct 1990
JUDGMENT No. .. 2G2ki&Q
JOT FOR GENERAL DmRIBUTION
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - interrogatories - appl~cat~on for leave to interrogate - whether interrogatories vexatious and oppressive - whether fishing interrogatories.
. . . .
ve Decls~ons ( Jud~c~a l Review) A d 1977 (Cth) - s.13
Customs 1901 (Cth) - ss.203, 229
Federal - Order 54 rule 8 Freedom 1982 (Cth) :OSTBR v. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRAL14 P
Davies J.
25 October 1990
SydneyNo. G 11 of 1990
THE -L COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
) No. G11 of 1990 ) 1
- ) BETWEEN: -
Applicant
U: C O M M O N W E A L T H O E AUSTRALIA First Respondent AND ERROL BRIAN SAMS Second Respondent
Coram: Davies 1. Date: 25 October 1990 Place: Sydney
MINUTES OF ORDER
P:
The motion be dismissed with costs.
m: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the
Federal Court Rules.
D THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALU )
) No. G11 of 1990 SOUTH
DISTRICT REGISTRY
) )
- ) BETWEEN: v
Applicant
A!iR. C O M M O N W E A L T H O E AUSTRALIA First Respondent - Second Respondent
Coram: Davies J. Date: 25 October 1990 Place: Sydney
PEASONS FOR J U D G M M
This is a motion for the grant of leave under Order 16 Rule 1 of the Federal Court
Rules which provides:. l . (l) The Court may, in its discretion, give leave to any party to file and serve upon any other party, within the period limited by the Court for this purpose, a notice requiring the party served to answer interrogatories relating to any matter in question between the interrogating party and the party served.
(2) The notice to answer interrogatories shall be made in, or substantially in,
the form numbered 23 in the First Schedule."
The interrogatories in respect of which leave is sought are attached to these reasons.
. .
The principal applicat~on has been brought under the ,4dministrative D e c i y p e ~
w c i a l Review) Act 1977 (Cth)("the ADJR Act") seeking orders of review with respect to certain decisions made by the second respondent, Mr E.B Sams, to seize goods under s.203 of the C u a t o m s 1 9 0 1 (Cth) which provides inter a1ia:-
"(2) An authorized person may seize any forfeited goods or any goods that he believes on reasonable grounds are forfeited goods."
As the application has been brought under the ADJR U, the issue is not whether the goods are forfeited goods as defined in s.229(1) of the Customs 4, but only whether the procedural requirements for seizure were complied with and whether, at the time of seizure,
Mr Sams believed on reasonable grounds that the goods were forfeited goods. The grounds
specified in the application include breach of the rules of natural justice, taking into account irrelevant considerations, failing to take into account relevant considerations, exercising a
power for a purpose other than that for which the power was conferred, exercising the power
unreasonably, error of law and no evidence. Part~culars of these grounds have not yet been supplied although the parties have filed and served affidavits setting out the evidence upon which they intend to rely a t the hearing.
Mr Sams has, upon request under 5.13 of the ADJR, provided statements of the
reasons for his seizure of the goods and those statements are annexed to one of the affidavits which has been filed on behalf of the applicant. But whether the applicant intends to rely upon them at the hearing has not yet been decided. I have been informed that it is not
him. There has been filed on the respondents' behalf an affidavit by Mr Paul O'Connor intended by the respondents to adduce evidence from Mr Sams. There is no affidavit from which has annexed letters and other documents; but whether all that material will be
admissible in evidence save by consent may be doubted.Based on the lack of an affidavit from Mr Sams, the principal contentions advanced in
support of the application for leave were deposed to by the applicant's solicitor as follows.-
"8 The applicant's solicitors consider that interrogatories are necessary in
view of the following circumstances:
@) Although the second respondent's statements of reasons appear to have been furnished in strict compliance with section 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, the applicant submits that the statements are not full and complete as they do not address substantive matters which are in issue in these proceedings. The statements do not direct attention to all material that was, or ought to have been, before the aecond respondent when the decisions were made and they do not fully disclose the reasoning process of the second respondent having regard to those materials. (c) The second respondent has not sworn an affidavit for the purposes of these proceedings and witbout interrogation it is not possible to otherwise know whether he fully enquired into matters which were in issue between the applicant and the Australian Customs Service in relation to the applicant's shipments. It is also not known whether the second respondent comprehended and understood answers and explanations given to him by the applicant's various representatives in the course of his enquiries, prior to the making of the decisions to seize the applicant's goods
(e)
On the materlal presently before the Court, in these proceedings, it is not known whether the second respondent availed hlmself of translation assistance in the course of his enquiries, investigations and iuterrogatlons of the applicant's representatives prior to making the decisions to seize the applicant's goods. In view of the applicant's representatives poor understanding of English and in view of the fact that documentary material placed before the second respondent included material whlch contained in whole or in part Chlnese ideographs, an important issue which bears upon the second respondent's decisions that are the subject of these proceedings.
( f )
Finally, the statements of reasons furn~shed to the applicant do not indicate fully the extent of enquiries undertaken by the second respondent prior to making the decisions to seize the applicant's goods. Pacts relating to these enquiries are important in view of the second respondent's apparent view as to the credit of the applicant's representatives.
9. The applicant's solicitors in these proceedings are particularly concerned to ensure that the proceedings be conducted in a manner whereby the issues before, and considerations by, the second respondent are clearly expressed prior to a hearing of the matter up to the time of the making of the decisions to seize the goods. The broad allegations made by the second respondent in his decisions to seize the applicant's goods, have the potential to expose the applicant to other proceedings under the Customs Act 1901. The applicant's solicitors are concerned to ensure that any possible need to defend such potential proceedings not be jeopardised through any lack of understanding of the second respondent's decision-making process."
As paragraph 9 seeks interrogatories for the purpose of possible other proceedings, I
reject that ground. Indeed, the mere suggestion that the applicant is looking to other proceedings, casts doubt upon the propriety of the present motion. The matters set out in
paragraphs S@), (c) and ( f ) are equally unhelpful. They do not show that information is needed in relation to a ground of review. They rather show reasons why the applicant wishes to fish for a ground of review.
As Order 16 Rule 1 makes clear, the grant of leave to interrogate 1s discretionary. Consideration may be given, not only to the form of the interrogatories and to any objections which might be taken should the interrogatories be del~vered, but also the question whether delivery of the interrogatories would be a useful and productive step promoting efficient
preparation for trial and a proper hearing. Increasingly, interrogatories are being looked upon
as an inefficient, time-wasting and expensive procedure. Any benefit obtained from interrogation tends to be outweighed by the delay and expense involved. Other means of
preparation for trial, such as the delivery of affidavits or proofs of evidence and the delivery
of notices to admit, tend better to serve the needs of efficient litigation. h the field of administrative law, the ability to obtain relevant documentary material by a request under the
Frcedam 1982 (Cth) and the ability to obtain under s.13 of the a statement of the reasons for decision including a statement of the flndlngs of fact and a reference to the evidence relied on, tend to obviate the need to interrogate save in an exceptional case. As Bowen C.J., Morling and Fitzgerald JJ. said in Llovd v. Costipap (1983) 62 A.L.R. 284 at p.293:
"A person aggrieved may apply for an order of review on any of the grounds
specified in the Act. If he does so, the onus of proving his case rests upon the applicant. He may have his statement under s 13, but the procedures of discovery and interrogatories will often be inappropriate. Generally, at least, the information to which a person is entitled under that Act is intended to be obtained in the manner which the Act prescribes."
Moreover, courts have recognised that, in administrative law proceedings, it may be
undesirable to require decision-makers and others to answer questions on oath. See Order 54
rule 8 and V nm n i f v. m (1990) 94 A.L.R. 177 at pp.180-2.
Thus, in administrative law cases, when other means are available for obtaining the reasons for a decision, interrogatories will not generally be allowed seeking a statement on oath of those reasons or even amplification of some part of the statement of reasons which may be thought to be inadequate. Sect~on 13 of the ADJR Aft itself provldes means of obtaining a fuller statement if it is considered that the statement delivered is inadequate.
Interrogatoriea may be useful if they are likely to produce a clear admission, as
discussed by Hunt J. in m v. Tamworth N e w w e r Co. La 119831 1 N S.W.L.R. 699 a t pp.707-9. Particularly is this so when the admission will reduce the costs of adducing evidence at the trial. Interrogatories should go to a precise point so that they can be answered clearly and the answers tendered fairly to both parties.
Interrogatories will not be allowed if they are fishing, vexatious or oppressive. As to
fishing interrogatories, i t is sufficient to refer to the description thereof by Lockhart J. in
W.A. v. Bannermsn (1980) 30 A.L.R. 559 at pp.574-5. His Honour's remarks were cited
with approval in LlpyP v. at p.292 where the Court said:. "There is much to be said for the view that it is not open to a party simply to allege that a decision was made without basis and then to seek to use the process of the court to attempt to make out a case and indeed to find out if his allegation has any foundation."
The interrogatories in respect of which leave is now sought generally appear to be fishing, in
that they go further than the matters deposed to in the affidavits filed, oppressive, in the sense that they would be time consuming and difficult to answer, and vexatious, in the sense that the answers would not deal precisely or fully with any particularised issue.
Take the interrogatories as to Mr Sams' understanding of Chinese and as to the
interpretation from English to Chinese or Chinex to English. In the first place, no particular
Secondly, the affidavit of Mr Ye Li Pei, which is referred to so often in the interrogatories. of the application specifies whether any or what matter is relied on in relation to this.
does not appear to make any substantial allegation in this respect. Mr Ye Li Pei deposed that, on 11 May 1989, he visited Mr Sams and that:- "My English is very poor and I took along the then company secretary, Robert Kwok to help me find out what was concerning Customs. Mr Kwok acted as my interpreter throughout the whole interview. I did not personally understand the Second Respondent's questions and answers. At all stages of the interview, I relied on Mr Kwok's translations."
Another deponent, Mr Ye Li Kun, when speaking of an interview he had with Mr Sams on
- 7 .
22 June 1989, said:-
"I was then asked some questions about Chinawave's involvement with importations from China. In the midst of those questions the interpreter said: 'we had better finish it off now. I have got to go.' No attempt was made by the second respondent to organise a further interview or seek further explanations from the applicant."
Allegations such as those do not need to be supported by interrogatories. If it is said that the applicant and its representatives were not given a fa11 opportunity to present the applicant's version of events, the matters relied on can be identified and verified by affidavits filed on behalf of the applicant. If it is alleged that some relevant consideration was not taken into
account because of a problem with communication, that circumstance can be identified and the facts supporting the allegation can be verified by affidavits lodged on the applicant's behalf.
And consider interrogatory 2. This inquires of "dealings", not of a particular
conversation, and it speaks of "dealings with each of those persons", even though the affidavits of Mr Ye Li Pei and Mr Ye Li Kun show that Mr Kwok, who was the company secretary and could speak English, was present in the interviews they had with Mr Sams. The interrogatory is oppressive. Many other interrogatories refer not to Mr Sams' reasons for
decision but to the affidavit of Mr Ye Li Pei and ask for comments thereon Correlation of the answers with Mr Sams' s.13 statements would be uncertain. Such ~nterrogatories are vexatious and oppressive. And almost all the interrogatories are fishing
I am of the view that leave to interrogate should be refused I have not attempted to
consider separately every interrogatory in the notice. I have not Identified any interrogatory
the delivery of which appears to be a useful step in preparation for the hearing.
At the next directions hearing, I shall give d~rections for the delivery of particulars of
the grounds of the application. Once those particulars have been served, both parties should give detailed consideration to the proof or disproof of the matters alleged. The applicant will
need to consider at an early date whether the whole of the affidavits filed on behalf of the applicant and the annexures thereto will be read, particularly as to whether the s.13 statement is to be relied upon in the applicant's case. The respondents w ~ l l need to consider carefully
what evidence, if any, is to be relied upon. As I have said, there may be problems with Mr O'Connor's affidavit for in general it merely annexes correspondence which passed after the
occurrence of the main events. A t the next directions hearing, the parties should have a clear view as to how the hearing will proceed. The question of the cross-examination of deponents should be considered.
For the reasons I have given, the motion will be dismissed with costs.
I certify that this and the preceding
7 pages are a true copy of the
reasons for judgment of the
Honourable Mr Justice Davies.
Aoc ia te : 'l
U
Date: 25 October 1990 Counsel for the applicant: Mr C.J. Stevens Solicitors for the applicant: Corrs Counsel for the respondent: Mr M.C. Marien Solicitor for the respondene Australian Government Solicltor Date of hearing: 3 October 1990 Date of judgment: 25 October 1990
JUDGMENT No. .- !l22Zlqe
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - interrogatories - application for leave to interrogate - whether interrogatories vexatious and oppressive - whether fishing interrogatories.
. . ive Dec . .
r n x n l w ls~ons audicial Review) AU 1977 (Cth) - s.13 1901 (Cth) - ss.203, 229
Federal - Order 54 rule 8
| f | o | - | F | 1982 (Cth) |
COSTER PTY LIMITED v. U M O N W E A L T H OF AUSTRALIk
No. G 11 of 1990 Davies J.
25 October 1990
Sydney)
) No G11 of 1990
SOUTH W- D I S T R I C T I S T R Y ) 1
- )
l!EIx&N: COSTER PTY LIMIT= Applicant AND
C O M M O N W E A L T H O E AUSTRALIA First Respondent m: ERROL BRIAN SAMS Second Respondent
Coram: Davies l. Date: 25 October 1990 Place: Sydney
MLNUTES OF ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The motion be dismissed with costs.
&s?xE. Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. JN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
) No. G11 of 1990
m
SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
) )
D E R A L D I V m )
BETWEEN:
Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Coram: Davies J. Date: 25 October 1990 Place: Sydney
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is a motion for the grant of leave under Order 16 Rule 1 of the Federal Court
Rules which provides:- "1. (1) The Court may, in its discretion, give leave to any party to file and
serve upon any other party, within the period limited by the Court for this purpose, a notice requiring the party served to answer interrogatories relating to any matter in question between the interrogating party and the party served.
(2) The notice to answer interrogatories shall be made in, or substantially in,
the form numbered 23 in the First Schedule."
The interrogatories in respect of which leave is sought are attached to these reasons.
. .
The principal application has been brought under the Administrative D -
. .
udlclal Review) Act 1977 (Cth)("the ADJR Act") seeking orders of review with respect to
certain decisions made by the second respondent. Mr E.B. Sams, to seize goods under s.203 of
the C u s t o m s 1 9 0 1 (Cth) which provides inter a1ia:-
"(2) An authorized person may seize any forfeited goods or any goods that he
believes on reasonable grounds are forfeited goods."
As the application has been brought under the ADJR U. the issue is not whether the goods are forfeited goods as defined in s.229(1) of the -toms Aa, but only whether the procedural requirements for seizure were complied with and whether, at the time of seizure,
Mr Sams believed on reasonable grounds that the goods were forfeited goods. The grounds
specified in the application include breach of the rules of natural justice, taking into account irrelevant considerations, failing to take into account relevant considerations, exercising a
power for a purpose other than that for which the power was conferred, exercising the power
unreasonably, error of law and no evidence. Particulars of these grounds have not yet been supplied although the parties have filed and served affidavits setting out the evidence upon which they intend to rely at the hearing.
Mr Sams has, upon request under s.13 of the ADJR Aa, provided statements of the reasons for his seizure of the goods and those statements are annexed to one of the affidavits which has been filed on behalf of the applicant. But whether the applicant intends to rely upon them at the hearing has not yet been decided. I have been informed that it is not
him. There has been filed on the respondents' behalf an affidavit by Mr Paul O'Connor intended by the respondents to adduce evidence from Mr Sams. There is no affidavit from which has annexed letters and other documents; but whether all that material will be
admissible in evidence save by consent may be doubted.
Based on the lack of an affidavit from Mr Sams, the principal contentions advanced in
support of the application for leave were deposed to by the applicant's solicitor as follows:-
"8. The applicant's solrcitors consider that interrogatories are necessary in
view of the following circumstances.
(b) Although the second respondent's statements of reasons appear to have been furnished in strict compliance with section 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, the applicant submits that the statements are not full and complete as they do not address substantive matters which are in issue in these proceedings. The statements do not direct attention to all material that was, or ought to have been, before the second respondent when the decisions were made and they do not fully disclose the reasoning process of the second respondent having regard to those materials. (c) The second respondent has not sworn an affidavit for the purposes of these proceedings and without interrogation it is not possible to otherwise know whether he fully enquired into matters which were in issue between the applicant and the Australian Customs Service in relation to the applicant's shipments. It is also not known whether the second respondent comprehended and understood answers and explanations given to him by the applicant's various representatives in the course of his enquiries, prior to the making of the decisions to seize the applicant's goods.
(c)
On the mater~al presently before the Court, in these proceedings, it is not known whether the second respondent availed himself of translation assistance in the course of hrs enqulrres, investigations and interrogations of the applicant's representatives prior to making the decisions to seize the appl~cant's goods. In vlew of the applicant's representatives poor understanding of English and in view of the fact that documentary material placed before the second respondent included material which contained in whole or in part Chinese ideographs, an important issue which bears upon the second respondent's decisions that are the subject of these proceedings.
( f )
Finally, the statements of reasons Iurn~shed to the applicant do not indicate fully the extent of enquiries undertaken by the second respondent prior to making the decisions to seize the applicant's goods. Facts relating to these enquiries are important in view of the second respondent's apparent view as to the credit of the applicant's representatives.
9. The applicant's solicitors in these proceedings are particularly concerned to ensure that the proceedings be conducted in a manner whereby the issues before, and considerations by. the second respondent are clearly expressed prtor to a hearing of the matter up to the time of the making of the decisions to seize the goods. The broad allegations made by the second respondent in his decisions to seize the applicant's goods, bave the potential to expose the applicant to other proceedings under the Customs Act 1901. The applicant's solicitors are concerned to ensure that any possible need to defend such potential proceedings not be jeopardised through any lack of understanding of the second respondent's decision-making process."
As paragraph 9 seeks interrogatories for the purpose of poss~ble other proceedings, I
reject that ground. Indeed, the mere suggestion that the applicant is looking to other proceedings, cash doubt upon the propriety of the present motlon. The matters set out in
paragraphs 8@), (c) and ( f ) are equally unhelpful. They do not show that information is
needed in relation to a ground of review They rather show reasons why the applicant wishes to fish for a ground of review. As Order 16 Rule 1 makes clear, the grant of leave to interrogate is discretionary. Consideration may be given, not only to the form of the lnterrogatories and to any objections which might be taken should the interrogatories be delivered, but also the question whether delivery of the interrogatories would be a useful and productive step promoting efficient
preparation for trial and a proper bearing. Increasingly, lnterrogatories are being looked upon
as an inefficient, time-wasting and expensive procedure. Any beneflt obtained from interrogation tends to be outweighed by the delay and expense involved Other means of
preparation for trial, such as the delivery of affidavits or proofs of evidence and the delivery
of notices to admit, tend better to serve the needs of efficient litigation. In the field of administrative law, the ability to obtain relevant documentary material by a request under the Ereedom of lDIormation 1982 (Cth) and the ability to obtain under 9.13 of the m
a statement of the reasons for decision including a statement of the findings of fact and a reference to the evidence relied on, tend to obviate the need to interrogate save in an exceptional case. As Bowen C.J., Morling and Fitzgerald JJ. said in Llovd v. C m (1983) 62 A.L.R. 284 at p.293:
"A person aggrieved may apply for an order of review on any of the grounds
specified in the Act. If he does so, the onus of proving his case rests upon the applicant. He may have his statement under S 13, but the procedures of discovery and interrogatories will often be inappropriate. Generally, at least, the information to which a person is entitled under that Act is intended to be obtained in the manner which the Act prescribes."
Moreover, courts have recognised that, in administrative law proceedings, it may be
undesirable to require decision-makers and others to answer questions on oath. See Order 54
rule 8 and -tion. ' ' Local Goverament and Ethnic Affairs v. (1990) 94 A.L.R. 177 at pp.180-2.
Thus, in administrative law cases, when other means are available for obtaining the reasons for a decision, interrogatories will not generally be allowed seeking a statement on oath of those reasons or even amplification of some part of the statement of reasons which may be thought to be inadequate. Section 13 of the ADJRt itself provides means of obtaining a fuller statement if it is considered that the statement delivered is inadequate.
Interrogatories may be useful if they are likely to produce a clear admission, as
discussed by Hunt J. in Hawke v. Tamworth Newsoaoer Co. Ltd [l9831 1 N.S.W.L.R. 699 at pp.707-9. Particularly is this so when the admission will reduce the costs of adducing
evidence at the trial. Interrogatories should go to a precise p o ~ n t so that they can be answered clearly and the answers tendered fairly to both parties.
Interrogatories will not be allowed if they are fishing, vexatious or oppressive. As to
fishing interrogatories, it is sufficient to refer to the description thereof by Lockhart J. in
W.A. Pi= v. Bannerman (1980) 30 A.L.R. 559 at pp.574-5. His Honour's remarks were cited
with approval in v. m at p.292 where the Court said:- "There is much to be said for the view that it is not open to a party simply to allege that a decision was made without basis and then to seek to use the process of the court to attempt to make out a case and indeed to find out if h n allegation has any foundation.'
The interrogatories in respect of which leave is now sought generally appear to be fishing, in
that they go further than the matters deposed to in the affidavits filed, oppressive, in the sense that they would be time consuming and difficult to answer, and vexatious, in the sense that the answers would not deal precisely or fully with any particularised issue.
Take the interrogatories as to Mr Sams' understanding of Chinese and as to the
interpretation from English to Chinese or Chinese to English. In the first place, no particular
Secondly, the affidavit of Mr Ye Li Pei, which is referred to so often in the interrogatories. of the application specifies whether any or what matter is relied on in relation to this.
does not appear to make any substantial allegation in this respect. Mr Ye Li Pei deposed that, on 11 May 1989, he visited Mr Sams and that:- "My English is very poor and I took along the then company secretary, Robert Kwok to help me find out what was concerning Customs. Mr Kwok acted as my interpreter throughout the whole interview. I did not personally understand the Second Respondent's questions and answers. At all stages of the interview, I relied on Mr Kwok's translations."
Another deponent, Mr Ye Li Kun, when speaking of an interview he had with Mr Sams on
22 June 1989, said:-
"I was then asked some questions about Chinawave's involvement with importations from China. In the midst of those questions the interpreter said: 'we had better finish it off now. I have got to go.' No attempt was made by the second respondent to organise a further interview or seek further explanations from the applicant."
Allegations such as those do not need to be supported by interrogatories. If it is said that the applicant and its representatives were not given a fair opportunity to present the applicant's version of events, the matters relied on can be identified and verified by affidavits filed on behalf of the applicant. If it is alleged that some relevant consideration was not taken into
account because of a problem with commun~cation, that circumstance can be identified and the facts supporting the allegation can be verified by affidavits lodged on the applicant's behalf.
And consider interrogatory 2. This inquires of 'dealings", not of a particular
conversation, and it speaks of 'dealings with each of those persons", even though the affidavits of Mr Ye Li Pei and Mr Ye Li Kun show that Mr Kwok, who was the company secretary and could speak English, was present in the interviews they had with Mr Sams. The interrogatory is oppressive. Many other interrogatories refer not to Mr Sams' reasons for
decision but to the affidavit of Mr Ye Li Pei and ask for comments thereon. Correlation of
vexatious and oppressive. And almost all the interrogatories are fishlng. the answers with Mr Sams' s.13 statements would be uncertain. Such interrogatories are 1 am of the view that leave to interrogate should be refused. I have not attempted to
consider separately every interrogatory in the notice. I have not identified any interrogatory
the delivery of which appears to be a useful step in preparation for the hearing.
At the next directions hearing, I shall give d~rections for the dellvery of particulars of
the grounds of the application. Once those part~culars have been served, both parties should give detailed consideration to the proof or disproof o l the matters alleged. The applicant will need to consider at an early date whether the whole of the affidavits filed on behalf of the applicant and the annexures thereto will be read, particularly as to whether the s 13 statement is to he relied upon in the applicant's case. The respondents will need to consider carefully
what evidence, if any. is to be relied upon. As I have said, there may be problems with Mr O'Connor's affidavit for in general it merely annexes correspondence which passed after the
occurrence of the main events. At the next directions hearing, the parties should have a clear view as to how the hearing will proceed. The question of the cross-examination of deponents should he considered.
For the reasons 1 have given, the motion will be dismissed with costs.
I certify that this and the preceding
7 pages are a true copy of the
reasons for judgment of the
Honourable Mr Justice Davies.
.4
Associate: /
Date: 25 October 1990 Counsel for the applicant: Mr C.J. Stevens Solicitors for the applicant: Corrs Counsel for the respondent: Mr M.C. Marien Solicitor for the respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of hearing 3 October 1990 Date of judgment: 25 October 1990
0
0
0