Payless Shoes Pty Ltd v Clarks Shoes Ltd

No judgment structure available for this case.

I

L

l

EETI;IEEM :

F>..YLESS

SHOES

FTP.

LIMITED

>.pplicant

C L A M S

SH@ES

LIMITED

Respondent

Judrre f<akinq @rdtr: Eeaumont, J.

h t e of Order:

4 F-prll 1985

I

i

!.here M3de :

5:Jdney

HINUTE @F OECEP

I

THE

COURT

5P.DEP.S

THAT:

I

1 -,

I -.

-.

7

The

rezpondftnt

f l l e

and

z e r x

a n s x e r s

t o

I n t e r r o a s t o r 1

13

annexed

t o

ths

reasons

f o r

Iudg-ment b;r 2 May 1996.

r .

1.

The

respondent

pay

one-half

of

the

a p p l i c a n t ' s

z o z t z

of

thls

a p p l l c a t l o n .

!

i

!

I I

I

I I I

i

I

I :

!'

I

b .

..

I

I '

!

I :

.,

I

$

8

!

I I

I

i

I

1

I>

.

,

I

CL>2KS SHOES LIMITED

F.ecpondent

i

., ,

1.

>.nswer

6B(b) ( f i i )

._

This

i n t e r roga to ry

a sked

sbou t

s

conver sa t lon

._

a l l e q e d t o h a v e o c c u r r e d

on

30

Msjr

1985

between

Mr.

I:GukOUrOU on behalf cjf the

respondent,

and

Mr.

I

2'kilbeck on behalf

of

the

applicant.

I n

t h a t

:on-:ersatlon.

i t 1s

suugested tha t

Mr.

K G U k G U r O U

sald

that

the

a p p l l s a n t ' s s t o r e s

d i d not

provlde

"a

s u i t a b l e

e n n r o n m e n t

f o r

t h e

t r e s p o n d e n t ' s l

b r a n d

a n d

t h e r e f o r e

[ t h e

a p p l l c a n t l

vi11

not

be

suppl led

,

S

21

t h

[ c e r t a i n

shoes3.

I'

Question

6A(b)

(iii)

t :

.

asked: -

!

l

I

t

1,

,-.

L,'

I

I .

l

I

3 .

l loert7 t3

admin i s t e r

a

f u r t h e r

m t e r r o g s t o r y

x k l n g

the

r e sponden t

t o

exp la in

=ha t

3 3 s

meant

by

t h e

phrase

"marke t

t es ted" .

€or

reasons

vh ich

v111 appear lster.

i n my v i e w ,

the

Court

hss

j u r l s d l c t i o n

p e r m l t

t o

t h e

3 d n i n i z t r a t i o n

of

a

f u r t h e r

i n t e r r o u s t o r y

I n

thsse

c l rcumstsncez .

_I

-.	kszers 7B(al and 9 B ( f l -

I . I - '

In

r e sponse

t o

ques t lons

t hen

administered,

the

r e s p o n d e n t

r e p l i e d

t h e

f o l l o v i n q

I n

tprms: -

" I do not

lmo;:.

b u t xculd not be s u r p r l z e d

If that ue re

t he

ca se"

and

I	"Plot az f a r s s I am	axare".	v.
' ,

In

my

o p l n l o n .

m s x z r s

t h e

Tl-Jen

a r e

L

m s u f f l c l e n t

s n d

I propose LG sskt sn

o rde r

, _.

purzuant t o Order- 15 Fule 3(1).

. .

I...

!

I

1.

to	Messrs Earnttt, Taylor. Sharp and Mrs.

Sharp. However. the snsirer did not ztate the persons or corporations represented by these

persons. It

is arTu&le

that this answer is

not a

sufficient answer for thst reason

but,

I n the clrcumstances,

I thmk that auain the

" '

lpproprlate courze

1 s for the Court

to grant

t ?	;
I

lesve to the applicant to admlnlster	3 further	t
I
mterroaatorj' for thiz purpose.

4 .

-\nswer

11B -

E7 questlon 119 the rsspondent vas asked when did Mr. Koukourou rece1.Jp a certarn llzt of

3ccountz.

The response :ss "on o r bsfore 30

April 1385.. .

. ".

I

5.

5. >.psver 13BLa) -

Queztion

13P.(a)

asked,

i n t e r a l ia ,

zhen

a

c e r t a i n

document was

s e n t

t o

Mr.

Koukourou.

There xas no

response

to

this

p a r t of

t h e

m t e r r o u a t o r g and

I t

should be

answered.

“khat number of

zhoes of

the

i?espondent

x e r e

s o l d

by

each of

Forbes .

&=crof t s

and Nails dur ing

the l? month

ended

31st

Ijecember , 1934.

”

The answer 12Efbl vas as iollovs -

!

6.

jatlsf ied

that

the

interroqatory

is

oppresslve.

I propose to make an order under Order	16 Rule
3(1).

.1 further dispute has

arisen bet-deen the parties In

respect of an application made on behalf of the

applicant to

administer a further

interrogatory.

On

the

application.

3

document. apparent17 that

of the

respondent, entltled “Outlet

Folic:J” vas tendered. Reference In that document 3 3 s made to J. number of standards rtaulred to be observed by outlets tradln? xith the respondent. The applicant now seeks to admlnlster a further mterrouatorg m the terms of the document annexed to these reasons.

I

!

. - -

--

izsues

i n the

l i t i u a t i o n and

the

respondent

1 s

u n a b l e t o p o l n t

t

o

any	pre judice	i f	i t	ye re	now	c o m p e l l t d	a n s u t r	t o	t h e
m t e r r o g 3 t o r y .

I

p r o p o s e t o o r d e r t h a t t h e m t e r r o $ a t o r y

be

answered.

t h e

c i r c u m t a n c e s .

I n

t h e

a p p l i c a n t

s h o u l d

r e c t l v e

one-half

of

It3 c o s t s

of

t h e a p p l i c a t i o n .

I ,

~~

)

[

MEW SO,UTH!

WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

1

I GENERAL'DIVI~ION I

1

NO. G 245 Of 1985 ' .

I..

PAYLESS SHOES PTY. LIEIITEL

Applicant

!

:'.

m	.
?
-2

AND:

CLARKS SHOES LIMITED

8 , .

Respondent	I ,.
..
. C

APPLICANT'S NOTICE TO ANSWER INTERROGATORIES

I J

By 6th March, 1986 Clarks Shoes Limited is required to answer interrogatory numbered 13 and verify its answers.

13. Look at document No. 2 in the Respondent's List of

..

_,

Documents.

!

In the view

of the Respondent in May

1985 in what way!','

I

did the retail outlets operated by the Applicant

not

I :

, .

meet the standards stated in that document?

,

:

P

What complaints have been made by any consumers or

an:'

i:

one to the Respondent about the

selling or servlclng

i

by the Applicant of any shoes of the Respondent.	L'.	L.'
: I

What	were the,! "Advertising programmes''	of	the	Fi	' :
t 1 ,

Respondent which other operators of any retail outlet;.

in the metropolitan area of Sydney were asked durlng	\ - :
I .
the year ended December 31, 1984 by or on behalf of	:,'

G

1 - I

R. R. SPEED

;..;

I

Solicltor f o r the Appllcant

I:

I ,

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

Payless Shoes Pty Ltd v Clarks Shoes Ltd [1986] FCA 114

Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0

[1986] FCA 114

4 Apr 1986