Payless Shoes Pty Ltd v Clarks Shoes Ltd

[1986] FCA 114

I

L

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

i !.here M3de : 5:Jdney

HINUTE @F OECEP

I I

I	THE	COURT	5P.DEP.S	THAT:
I
I
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 :
!'
I	b .
..
I	I '
!	I : .,
I
$ 8
!
I I
I
I	i
I
I
1
I>
. . ,
I
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

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 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 ,