Murray v Metro Meat International Ltd
[2000] WADC 289
•14 NOVEMBER 2000
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
DefendantGIO 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, or such further time as may be allowed by a Judge or Registrar. In considering whether to grant the application it is necessary to have regard to the history of the action generally.
The writ issued on 26 August 1999 had a general indorsement claiming damages for personal injury sustained by the plaintiff in the course of his employment with the defendant due to the negligence and/or breach of contract and/or breach of statutory duty by the defendant on 20 April 1995, approximately 4½ years earlier.
The defendant filed an appearance on 14 December 1999; the statement of claim was filed on 7 December 2000; and a defence and third party notice on 29 March 2000. Paragraphs 5 to 10 inclusive of the statement of claim plead the nature and extent of the plaintiff's employment duties and the alleged negligence and/or breach of contract by the defendant. Contrary to the indorsement on the writ there is no allegation of a breach of statutory duty.
The essential purpose of interrogatories is to establish material facts necessary to the applicant's cause of action or defence, and to achieve that purpose it is necessary that interrogatories be clear, concise and unequivocal: Hawke v Tamworth Newspaper Co Ltd (1983) 1 NSWLR 699 at 707.
The interrogatories proposed by the defendant are 19 in number, although having regard to the various subquestions would run into several hundred questions at least. Generally many of the questions proposed to be asked do not address the pleaded issues, are in many cases fishing in nature, prolix and oppressive, and in my view place a burden upon the plaintiff inconsistent with the degree to which the answers will advance a resolution of the controversy. Essentially I agree with the reasons expressed by the Deputy Registrar. Although there are some interrogatories which can be regarded as proper in form and content it is not for the Court to troll through interrogatories of the extent administered, identifying those which it is considered could be properly asked.
I reserved my decision on this matter because of the view I had taken that the statement of claim fails to identify the gravamen of the plaintiff's complaints as to the system of work being undertaken, and the manner in which failure of the defendant's obligations gave rise to his injury. I considered whether the delivery of interrogatories might assist to elucidate that issue. In the result I am not satisfied that would be appropriate. The statement of claim, and more particularly par 10 thereof is deficient and pursuant to O 29 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 I direct that par 10 of the statement of claim be struck out, and that the plaintiff do file an amended statement of claim identifying with particularity in par 10 the precise complaints that will be alleged at trial as to the circumstances of the work on the material date, and the manner in which those circumstances gave rise to his injury.
When the pleadings have been properly addressed the Court may be prepared to consider allowing the delivery of appropriately drafted interrogatories addressing the pleaded issues.
0
1
1