Murray v Metro Meat International Ltd - [2000] WADC 289

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: MURRAY -v- METRO MEAT INTERNATIONAL LTD & ANOR [2000] WADC 289

CORAM: WISBEY DCJ

HEARD: 6 OCTOBER 2000

DELIVERED : 14 NOVEMBER 2000

FILE NO/S: CIV 3244 of 1999

BETWEEN: GARRY JOHN MURRAY
Plaintiff
AND
METRO MEAT INTERNATIONAL LTD
Defendant
GIO AUSTRALIA LIMITED
Third Party

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Interrogatories - Refusal of Deputy Registrar to grant leave when administered out of time

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Decision of Deputy Registrar affirmed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr T Chin
Defendant:     Mr G Droppert
Third Party                   :     No Appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Taylor Smart
Defendant:     D G Price & Co
Third Party                   :     McAuliffe Schwikkard

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

Hawke v Tamworth Newspaper Co Ltd (1983) 1 NSWLR 699

Case(s) also cited:

Austin v Austin (1905) VLR 377
Blair v Haycock Cadle Co (1917) 34 TLR 39
Cameron v Cameron (1890) 7 WN (NSW) 29
Hennessy v Wright (2)(1890) 24 QBD 445
Knapp v Harvey (1911) 2 KB 725
Lyell v Kennedy (1993) 8 App Cas 217
Marriott v Chamberlain (1886) 17 QBD 154
McKinley v Robinson (1883) 14 VLR 195
Petchem Ltd (In liq) v B F Goddrich Chemical Ltd (1982) VR 485
Plymouth Mutual Co-op Society v Traders Publishing Association [1906] 1 KB 403
Potter's Sulphide Ore Treatment Ltd v Sulphide Corporation Ltd (1911) 13 CLR 101
Ring-grip (Australasia) Pty Ltd v HPM Industries Pty Ltd (1971) 1 NSWLR 798
Saunders v Jones (1877) 7 Ch D 435
Sharpe v Smail (1975) 49 ALJR 130
West v Conway (1923) SR (NSW) 344
White & Co v Credit Reform Association & Credit Index Ltd (1905) 1 KB 653

WISBEY DCJ: On 18 May 2000 the defendant delivered for answer on oath by the plaintiff extensive interrogatories directed to liability and quantum. Order 3 r2 of the District Court Rules provides that leave is required to administer interrogatories save and except where the action involves a claim for personal injury and the interrogatories are administered within 110 days of an appearance being filed.
This is an action for damages for personal injury and the defendant's memorandum of appearance was filed on 14 December 1999. As a consequence the delivery of the interrogatories was about a month and a half out of time, and the plaintiff not consenting to answer them, leave was required.
On 16 June 2000 the defendant filed a summons for leave to administer the interrogatories and the application was dismissed by Deputy Registrar Harman on 10 August 2000 for reasons which appear on the file.
On 17 August 2000 the defendant filed a notice of appeal against the Deputy Registrar's decision, the notice purporting to be pursuant to the authority contained in O 6 r 11 of the District Court Rules. That relevantly provides that there is a right of appeal by way of a hearing de novo provided that the notice of appeal is given within five days of the decision complained 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Murray v Metro Meat International Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] WADC 289
Decision Date: 14 NOVEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Murray v Metro Meat International Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Murray, and the defendant, Metro Meat International Ltd, regarding the administration of interrogatories. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the Deputy Registrar should have granted leave for the interrogatories to be administered, given they were served outside the prescribed time limit.

The court was required to determine whether the delay in serving the interrogatories was justified and whether the defendant had suffered any prejudice as a result of the late service. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles of fairness and whether it was just and equitable to allow the interrogatories to proceed under the circumstances.

The court held that the delay in serving the interrogatories was not justified, and the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time. The court further found that the defendant had not suffered any prejudice due to the delay, as they were still able to respond adequately to the interrogatories. The court emphasised that while it had a discretion to grant leave for interrogatories to be administered out of time, such discretion should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where there was a compelling reason to do so. Ultimately, the court determined that the Deputy Registrar was correct in refusing to grant leave for the interrogatories to be administered.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to administer the interrogatories out of time was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the application.

Orders