Milner, Bryan John v Delita Pty Ltd Summary

IN THE FEIjERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

No. G164 of 1982

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	No.	G 85 of 1983
GENERAL DIVISION

I N T H E MATTER

the

TRADE PRACTICES ACT, 1974

BETWEEN :

BRYAN JOHN MILNER AND ORS.

Applicants

fWD :

EEJLIITA FTY. LIMITED

ROGER McMILLAN CLASSON and

MGRRIS WALTER LEWIN

Respondents and

First Cross-Claimants

AND

JOHN CHRISTCPHEH DENMETT

First Cross-Respondents

and

Second Cross-Claimants

AMD :	ROGEF. McMILLEN GLASSOPJ and
MORRIS WALTER .LEbIIkJ

Second Cross-Respondents

LOCKHART J .

This

is t he first dav of

the t r i a l of 3

complicated and

1enuth;r matter which has been the subioct of a larcre number of

directions hearinas extending over 3 period in exces3 of l2 months.

This morninu, counsel for the applicants informed

that the

applicants' solicitors received last Fridap the verified answers to

iriterroaatories which

had been administered to the cross resPondents

bv the applicants.

The cross respondents obiect to snswerinu certain

the interroaatories on various arounds, but principallv

on the

Ground that thev do not relate to any fact in	issue between the
applicants and the cross respondents.

The applicants have moved this mornina

t'or an order, Pursuant

to (3.16 r.8. that the cross-respondents be required t o make further

answers to interroaatories. verified b

affidavit. on the around that

the cross-respondents

are not entitled to take this obicction;

or. if

thev are entitled to do so. it should not succeed.

3 .

The directions were made. so far as presentlv relevant. bv

consent and followed discussion between counsel and me

prior to the

taking of evidence on commission in

Hawaii (which in fact was taken in

June this veari: and one of

the purposes of those directions was to

crystallise all outstandinu matters between the parties that could

have a bearinu on the formulation	f issues and the takina	of evidence
in Hawaii.

The applicants'

assertion

that

the

cross-respondents

are

barred from takina the

crround of objection to which

I have referred is

founded essentially upon the provisions

0.16 R . c j c 3 ) ( a i .

I have

been referred

to -;srious iudcrments

of sinalc iudcres of

the Supreme

Court of New South Wales:

but

none

the iuduments

touch

the

Darticular question which

I have to decide.

L accept, for present purposes

ibut I still leavc it as an

npen question) that this Court has

power

to permit an applicant to

administer interrouatories to

a cross-respondent, and has o3o';Jcr to

enforce that order bTJ requirinu the cross-rcs~ondtnt to answer those interrouatories. The question reallv, in my view, is nhether in this

case,

unless the cross-resoondents are barred from takina the point

which thev have taken, the Court. as a matter

of discretion, should

require that thev answer the interroaatories

in auestion.

I need not refer in detail t.o the -mrio...s provisions of this Court's Rules to which 1 have been referred.

Thev may he summarised

bv zspina t.hat

under

0. l 6 R. L.

Partv

mavJ

Serve .I notice

interroqatina another Partv. as of riaht. within the times and subiect

to the conditions specified in that

rule.

The Court has

power to

order any part? to answer interrouatories whenever it wishes: 0.16

R.5.

I am firmly of the opinion that it

vas not intended bv the

Court or the

parties, when the consent orders were made on

5 March

this -Jear,that the interroaated partT? should

be barred from obiectina

to answerina intcrroaatories on the around in question

here. Not on17

40 I think that the circumshnces surroundina the makina of those

orders operate acrainst that conclusion; but the orders themselves,

upon their proper construction.

deny!

the applicants' contention.

I do

not reaard

0.16

r a . 6 ( 3 ) ( 3 ) as Dointina to

a contrarv

conclusion. That oaracrraph has in mind, at Icast orincipallv!, thouah Derhaos not exclusively, the case where the Court orders a party to

answer

3 :';pecific interrouatorr xhich has

then been formulated and

which is before t.he tl'ourt and was then. o r could have been, the subiect of debate. 'mat is not this r a s e . as no oarticular

intcrroaatories vere before the Court on

S March 1'324.

(:In

t h e 87uer;t.ion

of discretic2n.

1 *,KS t ~ l d

from the Bar table

that the applicants ham thcmsel-Jes answered intcrrogatories

which the

crctzz rcsDoncicnts administered to them.

The applicants

submitted

that, not to require the cross-resoondent5 to cio the same. -~ould

be to

vitiate the elcment of mutualit-! inherent in the orders of 5 March.

am n o t

satisfied that this is

so.

Althoucrh the aoplicants

.Inwered

the cross-respodents' intcrrouatorics, it

is common around that the

substance of those answers

was covered bv the applicants in their

5 .

answers

the

respondents'

interrogatories.

I do not

see

anv

specific prejudice

which the applicants miuht sustain

if the obiection

taken by the cross-respondents

i upheld.

Another qround taken by the cross-respondents to answerina

some interrogatories which the applicants seek to administer to them

ifor

example.

interrocratorv

number

is that it

said to be

oppressive.

I am satisfied that this around

of obiection fails.

There are

no issues on the Dleadinas between the applicants

and the cross--resoondents. I think, in all the circumstances. that

the	Droper course is to decline at this staac to make the orders

soucrht bz the

applicants.

1 will not, however, shut

out

applicants from renewincr their application in the future if thcv wish

The case of Milner, Bryan John v Delita Pty Ltd involves a dispute within the realm of the Trade Practices Act, 1974. The applicants, Bryan John Milner and others, are contesting the actions of Delita Pty Ltd and other respondents in a complex legal battle. The case is being heard in the Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales District Registry, and it is part of the general division. The applicants have sought to enforce specific interrogatories, which are questions under oath, against the cross-respondents, but the latter have objected to answering some of these interrogatories. This objection has led to the applicants seeking a court order to compel the cross-respondents to provide verified answers to these interrogatories.

The primary legal issue the court was required to decide was whether the cross-respondents were entitled to object to answering certain interrogatories administered by the applicants. The applicants argued that the court had the power to enforce the answering of interrogatories and that the cross-respondents were not entitled to object to such interrogatories. The court also had to consider the discretionary aspect of whether it should require the cross-respondents to answer the interrogatories despite their objections.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the provisions of the Federal Court Rules that allowed parties to administer interrogatories and the circumstances under which such interrogatories could be enforced. The court noted that while it had the power to permit and enforce the answering of interrogatories, the question was whether the cross-respondents were barred from raising the objection they had. The court found that the cross-respondents were not barred from objecting and that the orders made previously did not intend to bar such objections. The court also noted that the applicants had themselves answered interrogatories from the cross-respondents, and therefore, there was no significant prejudice if the objections were upheld. Additionally, the court concluded that some of the objections, such as the claim that the interrogatories were oppressive, were not valid. Consequently, the court declined to make the orders sought by the applicants at that stage of the proceedings.

The court's decision highlights the importance of the discretionary power in enforcing interrogatories and the need to balance the rights of the parties involved. The court ultimately decided not to compel the cross-respondents to answer the interrogatories at that juncture but left open the possibility for the applicants to renew their application in the future if they wished to do so.

Milner, Bryan John v Delita Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established