J Corp Pty Ltd v Australian Building Labourers Federation Union of Workers (WA Branch)(No 2)
Case
•
[1993] FCA 42
•17 Feb 1993
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
J Corp Pty Ltd v Australian Building Labourers Federation Union of Workers (WA Branch)(No 2) [1993] FCA 42
[1993] FCA 42
17 Feb 1993
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of J Corp Pty Ltd v Australian Building Labourers Federation Union of Workers (WA Branch)(No 2), the respondents in the principal proceedings sought leave to appeal from an interlocutory order made by Gummow J. The appeal was directed towards the administration of interrogatories within the context of the complex proceedings. The applicants in the principal proceedings, liquidators of two companies, were seeking information from the respondents regarding certain transactions. The primary issue before the court was whether the designated persons, who were to verify the answers on behalf of the respondents, had the requisite authority to do so.
The court examined the relevant provisions of the Rules of Court concerning interrogatories. It was noted that the Rules allow for the verification of answers by a member or officer of the corporation. The court considered the arguments presented by the respondents, particularly the contention that requiring certain individuals to verify the answers despite their lack of current authority was inappropriate and potentially oppressive. The court concluded that the preferable course was to adhere to the Rules, which mandate that the affidavit verifying the statement in answer to interrogatories must be made by a member or officer of the corporation who has knowledge of the facts.
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the part of the interlocutory order that directed specific individuals to verify the answers, and instead ordered that the respondents file and serve answers to the interrogatories in accordance with the Rules of Court. The respondents were also ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
The court examined the relevant provisions of the Rules of Court concerning interrogatories. It was noted that the Rules allow for the verification of answers by a member or officer of the corporation. The court considered the arguments presented by the respondents, particularly the contention that requiring certain individuals to verify the answers despite their lack of current authority was inappropriate and potentially oppressive. The court concluded that the preferable course was to adhere to the Rules, which mandate that the affidavit verifying the statement in answer to interrogatories must be made by a member or officer of the corporation who has knowledge of the facts.
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the part of the interlocutory order that directed specific individuals to verify the answers, and instead ordered that the respondents file and serve answers to the interrogatories in accordance with the Rules of Court. The respondents were also ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Discovery & Disclosure
-
Interlocutory Orders
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Arnold v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2025] QDC 101
Cases Citing This Decision
298
Foots v Southern Cross Mine Management Pty Ltd
[2007] HCA 56
Chaina v Alvaro Homes Pty Ltd
[2008] NSWCA 353
Chaina v Alvaro Homes Pty Ltd
[2008] NSWCA 353
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
0
Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd v Inter-Continental Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd
[1969] HCA 34
Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd v Inter-Continental Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd
[1969] HCA 34
Kalgeracos v Bomba
[2009] NSWSC 1271