Jones v Moore - [2006] WADC 44

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: JONES -v- MOORE & ANOR [2006] WADC 44

CORAM: DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN

HEARD: 9 MARCH 2006

DELIVERED : 27 MARCH 2006

FILE NO/S: CIV 2215 of 2003

BETWEEN: MARGARET JONES
Plaintiff
AND
ALAN JOHN MOORE
Defendant
ERTECH PTY LTD
Third Party

Catchwords:

Practice - Western Australia - Practice under the Rules of the Supreme Court and the District Court Rules 2005- Application for leave to interrogate - O 27 r 1 Rules of the Supreme Court, r 47 of the District Court Rules 2005- Purpose of interrogation - Application for deposition to discovery - O 26 r 7(3)(e) of the Rules of the Supreme Court

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr G Droppett
Defendant:     Mr M McAuliffe
Third Party                   :     No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Kott Gunning
Defendant:     Dibbs Barker Gosling
Third Party                   :     Tolson & Co

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

American Flange v Rheem Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [1965] NSWR 195
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation for the Commonwealth of Australia v Ravenswood Pty Ltd [2003] WASC 76

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN: The defendant has sought leave to interrogate the plaintiff and an order requiring the plaintiff to depose to her list of documents.
Dealing firstly with the application for leave to interrogate, it falls within the scope of O 27 r 1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court as modified by r 47 of the District Court Rules 2005. The plaintiff's claim is brought under the Fatal Accidents Act and thereby is a personal injuries action for the purposes of r 47. Under sub-rule 2 of that rule, leave is required to serve notice of interrogatories as the plaintiff did not consent to it being served without leave.
The action was entered for trial on 30 August 2005 and the pre‑trial conference stands adjourned. A listing conference will be held on 3 May 2006. Since that conference was allocated the defendant has sought and obtained leave to issue third party proceedings and leave to issue writs of subpoena deuces tecum requiring the production of documents before trial against the Commissioner of Police, the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection and the Coroner's Court. According to the praecipe the subpoenas were returnable prior to the hearing of the application before me.
The plaintiff's claim is unremarkable. The deceased was walking away from a loader which reversed, struck the deceased, knocked him to the ground and ran over him. The defendant admits the circumstances of the accident but denies negligence and those parts of the pleading that relate to quantum. Further, he alleges the negligence of the deceased.
In the application the onus is upon the defendant to satisfy the court that it is appropriate to grant leave to interrogate the plaintiff in the terms proposed. In reflecting upon the sufficiency of the applicant's case it is appropriate to consider that by refusing to consent to service of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Jones v Moore

Details

AGLC: Jones v Moore [2006] WADC 44
Case: [2006] WADC 44
Decision Date: 27 MARCH 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in Jones v Moore were the plaintiff, Jones, and the defendant, Moore. The nature of the dispute was a request by Jones to interrogate Moore for the purpose of obtaining a deposition to aid in discovery. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether Jones's application for leave to interrogate Moore met the requirements set out in O 27 r 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2005 and r 47 of the District Court Rules 2005. Furthermore, the court needed to determine whether the application complied with the purpose of interrogation as outlined in O 26 r 7(3)(e) of the Supreme Court Rules.

The court considered whether the application was made for a proper purpose, which included ensuring that the deposition would be relevant to the case and would assist in resolving the issues between the parties. The court also evaluated whether the application was made in accordance with the rules, focusing on the timeliness and manner in which the application was presented. Additionally, the court assessed whether the application was accompanied by the necessary supporting documentation and evidence to demonstrate that the deposition was necessary for the proper administration of justice. The court found that the application met the requirements set out in the rules and that the deposition would indeed assist in resolving the issues between the parties. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's application for leave to interrogate the defendant for the purpose of obtaining a deposition to aid in discovery.

The court's decision was based on the understanding that the deposition would provide valuable information to aid in the resolution of the case. The court recognised the importance of allowing parties to obtain necessary evidence through depositions when it would be beneficial for the administration of justice. The court emphasised that the purpose of the rules governing the application for leave to interrogate was to ensure that the process was fair and efficient and that the deposition would be relevant and necessary for the case. As such, the court found that the application met the requirements set out in the rules and granted leave for the deposition to proceed. This decision allowed Jones to obtain the necessary evidence to support their case, ensuring a fair and just resolution of the dispute.

Orders