Liesfield v SPI Electricity Pty Ltd (Ruling No 3)

The matter before the court involved Liesfield, the plaintiff, and SPI Electricity Pty Ltd, the defendant. Liesfield sought leave to serve interrogatories on SPI, a corporation, in the context of a major class action related to the Black Saturday bushfires. The plaintiff aimed to obtain detailed information from the defendant regarding its operations, policies, and potential liability. The court was tasked with determining whether leave to serve the interrogatories should be granted, who should respond to them within the corporation, and whether employees or contractors should also answer the interrogatories.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the interrogatories should be allowed and, if so, who should respond on behalf of the corporation. The plaintiff argued that the interrogatories were necessary to uncover critical information pertinent to the case. The defendant opposed the application, contending that the interrogatories were overly broad and burdensome. The court had to balance the plaintiff's right to discover relevant information against the defendant's right to protect its confidential business information. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the interrogatories should be answered by an officer or an authorised person of the corporation, and if former employees or contractors should also be compelled to respond.

The court carefully considered the provisions of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules, 2005, particularly rules 30.05 and 30.08, which govern the service and response to interrogatories in major class actions. The court found that the interrogatories were relevant and necessary for the fair and efficient resolution of the case. It determined that the interrogatories should be answered by an authorised person of the corporation, not necessarily an officer. The court also ruled that former employees and contractors should not be directed to answer the interrogatories unless specific circumstances warranted it. The court exercised its discretion to manage the case efficiently and fairly, taking into account the interests of all parties involved.

The court granted the plaintiff's application with specific directions regarding who should answer the interrogatories and under what circumstances. The defendant was required to provide answers from an authorised person within the corporation, and no former employees or contractors were directed to respond unless further orders were made. The court's decision aimed to facilitate the discovery process while protecting the confidentiality and operational integrity of the corporation.