Fat-Sel Pty Ltd v Brambles Holdings Ltd

[1985] FCA 243

CATCHWORDS

Discoverv and Interroqatories - prolis interrogatories - undesirable 1n comlnerclal litlgatlon.

!

FAT-SET, FTY. LIMITED V. BRAMBLES HOLDIFGS LIMITED

I

i

I

No. G16 of 1985

!

I

I

Beaurnont , J.

11 June 1985.

Sydney.

I

IPT THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

)

l'lE[Q SOUTH	WALES	REGISTRY	)	tTo-	G 1 6 of	1985
I

GENERAL DIVISCON 1

BETVEEN :	FAT-SEL FTY. LII4ITED
Applicant

.

: BRAHBLES HOLDINGS LIMITED

Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDER

Judge making order : Beaurnont , J.

Date order made:	11 June 1985.
Nhere made :	Sydney.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The applicant: pay the respondent 's costs of Its

ob lec t ion to the ln t e r roga to r l e s sough t t o be administered.

Note: Se t t l e~nen t and en t ry of orders i s d e a l t v i t h in

Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

i

IIJ THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA 1

1

NEW SOUTH bJALES REGISTRY	)	No. G16 of 1985
1

GEI\JEFwL D I V I S I O N )

BETWEEN :

FAT-SEL FTY. LIflITED

Appllcant

BFAMBLES HOLDINGS LIMITED

Respondent

CORAM: Beaumont , J .

DATED: 11 June 1985.

I

RE9SONS FOR JUDGMENT

I (OM RESPONDENT’S APPLICATION FOR COSTS ON

OBJECTIONS TO IIJTEXROGATORIES)

The respondenr; seeks the costs of Its successful

! oblection to the administration of interrogatorles by the

applicant. The background to the appllca.tlon 1s that although this matter 1 s set d o m fo r hearing at the end of

this month, mterrogatories requlrlng in all some 3,000

responses were adminlstered only late last month by the

applicant. The respondent objected to these interrogatories

2 .

on the grounds, in ter al la, that t h e i r sheer volume was

oppress ive ( se American Flanq-e and Manufacturins Co. Inc. v .

Hheeln (Australia) F ty . Limited (No. 2 ) C195511 N.S.W.X. 193).

Idhen the hear ing of the respondent 's o9jections

commenced. I ind ica ted t o the appl icant that I had ser ious

reservations about the u t i l i t y of p r o l i x i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s of

the kind now pressed, a t l e a s t i n commercial l l t l g a t l o n of

this kind especially vhere, as here, discovery had taken

p lace ( see Colman, The P rac t i ce and Procedure of the

Commercial Cour t (1.983) a t p.58: Book Rev~ew (1985) 59

B.L.J. a t p.3001. I also expressed doubts about the

r e t en t ion of t h e h e a r i n g d a t e l a t e r this month i f orders

were made directing the respondent t o answer even a f r a c t i o n

l

of the mter roga tor ies sought .

After an adjournment to ake mstruct lons, the

appl icant indicated that , because it WRS anxious tha t a

f ina l hea r ing o i the principal proceedings should proceed at

an ea r ly da t e , i t would not press its i n t e r roga to r i e s . The

respondent now seeks the cos t s of i t s o b ~ e c t i o n t o thc.

i n t e r roga to r i e s .

It i s a general rule that a wholly successful

defendant should recelve hls cos ts un less good rea5on i s

I

shm7n t o the contrary (see falilne v. Attorney-General f o r the

S t a t e of Tasmania ( 1 9 5 6 ) 95 C .L .R . 460 a t p .477; Gladstone

3 .

Fark Shopainq Centre FtV. Limited v. U, Full Federal

Court, unreported, 18 December 1984). The applicant having

abandoned I t s wish to administer the interrogatories, it

must follow that the usual rule should apply and that costs

should iollow the event. The circumstances in which the

interrogatories were not pressed cannot provide sufficient

reason for depriving the respondent of its costs.

I order that the applicant pay the respondent's

costs of its objection to the interrogatories scluqht to be

administered.

Counsel. ,%nd solicitors f o r the applicant:

Mr. G.A. Moore and	Mr. D. Narren instructed by Messrs.	N.G.
Cassim & Company.

Counsel and solicitors for the respondent:

f4r. L.P. Robberds Q.C. and Mr. S.D. Robb instructed by Messrs.

'Stephen Jaques Stone James.

I