Re: ATOCHEM S.A. And: JOHN NORMAN BUTTON, MINISTER OF STATE FOR INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE No. G166 of 1984 Practice and Procedure
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION Burchett J.
CATCHWORDS
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Interrogatories - Directions as to administration of interrogatories not pre-determining that there is no objection to answers being required to particular interrogatories - Oppressiveness of interrogatories - Requirement of precision - Inappropriateness of interrogatories in ADJR application where s. 13 statement can be obtained and further and better particulars secured under s. 13(7) - Fishing interrogatories - Interrogatories as to names of individuals and contents of documents - Claim of privilege under Census and Statistics Act 1905.
W.A. Pines Pty. Ltd. v. Bannerman (1980) 30 A.L.R. 559
Conde v. 2KY Broadcasters Pty. Ltd. (1982) 2 N.S.W.L.R. 221
Barbarian Motor Cycle Club Incorporated v. Koithan (1984) 35 S.A.S.R. 481
HEARING
SYDNEY
#DATE 7:3:1986
ORDER
The directions given on 22 March 1985 as varies on 14 June 1985 concerning the administration of interrogatories and furnishing of verified answers thereto be vacated.
Interrogatories numbered 2(iii)(b), 3, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14 and 15 are not required to be answered.
The applicant is directed to file and serve within 14 days a re-draft of its Notice to Answer Interrogatories if it desires to administer interrogatories having regard to the Court's rulings and in that event the time for answering the interrogatories in such re-drafted Notice shall be 28 days after service unless a further application be made in relation to these times or the form of the interrogatories in any such Notice. If Interrogatories 9 and 10 are included in any such Notice, they are required to be answered.
The applicant pay three-quarters of the respondent Minister's costs of the motion.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
JUDGE1
By this Notice of Motion the respondent seeks orders that he not be required to answer certain interrogatories included in a Notice to Answer Interrogatories delivered on behalf of the applicant. The Application, in which the interrogatories are sought to be administered, challenges, under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, the decision of the respondent that s. 8 of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975 applies to polyvinyl chloride general purpose homopolymer (not including paste or emulsion grades) exported from France to Australia after 4 April 1984, the export price of which is less than the amount of normal value. The grounds of the application embraced denial of natural justice, non-observance of procedures required by law, and claims that the decision was not authorised by the…
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.
Continue reading Pearce v Button
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Pearce, A.G. & K.N. Minister for Industry & Commerce & Ors [1986] FCA 6
Case
[1986] FCA 6
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Pearce v Button, the dispute was between the applicant, Pearce, and the respondent, Button, who was the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The applicant sought information via interrogatories, which are formal written questions, in the context of an Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act application. The Federal Court was tasked with deciding the appropriate scope and nature of these interrogatories. The legal issues centred on whether certain interrogatories were oppressive, lacked precision, or were inappropriate in the context of an ADJR application where a statement under section 13 could be obtained and further particulars secured under section 13(7). Additionally, the court considered whether the interrogatories constituted "fishing" inquiries and if there was an appropriate claim of privilege under the Census and Statistics Act 1905.
The Court determined that the directions concerning the interrogatories were overly broad and pre-determined the issues without proper consideration. It ruled that the interrogatories were oppressive due to their excessive scope and lack of precision. The interrogatories seeking names of individuals and contents of documents were deemed inappropriate, especially given the availability of section 13 statements and the possibility of obtaining further particulars. The Court found that the interrogatories were akin to fishing exercises, lacking a clear and direct purpose. Furthermore, the Court held that the applicant's claim of privilege under the Census and Statistics Act was not substantiated, thereby dismissing the defence.
In light of these findings, the Court vacated the previous directions concerning the interrogatories and specified which interrogatories were not required to be answered. The applicant was directed to re-draft its Notice to Answer Interrogatories if it wished to proceed, with a new deadline for responses. Interrogatories 9 and 10 were to be answered if included in the re-drafted Notice. Lastly, the Court ordered the applicant to pay three-quarters of the respondent's costs associated with the motion.
Orders
Orders of the court
The directions given on 22 March 1985 as varies on 14 June 1985 concerning the administration of interrogatories and furnishing of verified answers thereto be vacated.
Interrogatories numbered 2(iii)(b), 3, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14 and 15 are not required to be answered.
The applicant is directed to file and serve within 14 days a re-draft of its Notice to Answer Interrogatories if it desires to administer interrogatories having regard to the Court's rulings and in that event the time for answering the interrogatories in such re-drafted Notice shall be 28 days after service unless a further application be made in relation to these times or the form of the interrogatories in any such Notice. If Interrogatories 9 and 10 are included in any such Notice, they are required to be answered.
The applicant pay three-quarters of the respondent Minister's costs of the motion.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.