Davis v Bo's Plant Hire Pty Ltd

The case of Davis v Bo's Plant Hire Pty Ltd involved a claim for damages for personal injuries resulting from an alleged workplace accident. The plaintiff, Fletcher Davis, sought compensation from the first defendant, Bo's Plant Hire Pty Ltd (in liquidation), and the second defendant, Watkins Pacific (QLD) Pty Ltd trading as WATPAC. The plaintiff alleged that he was injured by a drott, operated by an employee of the first defendant, at the north access gate of the construction site. The defendants denied all material allegations in the statement of claim and the second defendant further alleged contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

The court was required to decide whether leave should be granted to the defendants to deliver a set of interrogatories to the plaintiff. The defendants argued that they had no knowledge of the incident except for the plaintiff's allegations and were unable to prepare defences. They also sought information on the plaintiff's pre-existing injuries which they believed could be relevant to the case. The plaintiff opposed the grant of leave, arguing that interrogatories should only be allowed in relation to matters the applicant is required or seeks to prove at the trial.

The court considered the provisions of O.35 r.21(1)(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, which provide that leave to deliver interrogatories may be granted if the Court or Judge is satisfied there is not likely to be available to the applicant at the trial any other reasonably simple and inexpensive way of proving the matter sought to be elicited by interrogatories. The court found that the defendants had discharged the onus of showing why leave to deliver interrogatories on the question of liability should be granted, as they had no knowledge of the incident and extensive inquiries had not identified any witnesses or evidence to support the plaintiff's allegations.

The court also found that leave should be granted to the defendants to interrogate the plaintiff as to pre-existing injuries to his leg, as this could be relevant to the case and could be established more cheaply through an interrogatory than by calling the relevant medical expert at the trial. The court exercised its discretion under O.35 r.20(2) to allow a number greater than 30 interrogatories to be delivered in the circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, the court granted leave to the defendants to deliver interrogatories to the plaintiff, with the plaintiff required to deliver answers to the interrogatories by 12th July 1996. The court noted that it would hear argument as to costs.