Sagittarian Enterprises Pty Ltd v Ampol Ltd

[1987] FCA 330

. f

NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION	..
:. ' I '

IN 'THE FEDERAL COURT

OF AUSTRALIA

1 -

WESTERN AUSTRALIA	l
DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION	NO. WAG 9 of 1986
B E T W E E N :	SAGITTARIAN ENTERPRISES PTY LIMITED

First Appllcant

RAYMOND ARTHUR WOOLLETT AND

KAYE LORRAINE WOOLLETT

Second Applicants

and

AMPOL LIMITED

i'

Respondent	!.
i -

CORAM:

FRENCH J.

8 MAY 1987

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 ,

I

This is a notice of motlon seeking orders that the i

respondent make and file further answers to certain

~

interrogatorles	admlnistered	by the applicants in these	I
I ,

proceedings. The broad nature and scope of the proceedings and

the issues canvassed in the pleadings filed to date have recently

been referred to by the Court in dealing with a motion on the part L -

of the respondent s rike to out the proceedings and/or ,I,

- I . .

alternatively certain parts of the statement of claim. 1

._ . l

--- -	I '
1

. -_	I
I

The interrogatories for whl, rs are sought

fall	Into	two groups: the first gkb	._...,	respondent	i	,	I	:
4 vi'	L :

information whe her to s or //:g:o med second l .

I. . .

! I .	t
! .:
L .
!#
I .

-, .-4- . _ L- . . . _- - ._ i - - . - _-,1 ..- c_ -. . -.

. - - -

2.

a p p l l c a n t , Mrs Woollett, w a s p r e s e n t a t v a r l o u s m e e t l n g s a t whlch

t h e r e s p o n d e n t e v l d e n t l y a l l e g e s t h a t I t I n f o r m e d t h e f l r s t named

s e c o n d a p p l i c a n t of t h e e x l s t e n c e of a l ea se ; t h a t is to s a y , t h a t

t h e r e s p o n d e n t w a s n o t t h e owner 0: t h e s u b ~ e c t premises.

The matter a r l s e s u n d e r t h e p l e a d i n g s i n t h i s way: i n

p a r a . 3 of t h e d e f e n c e a n d l n a n s w e r t o p a r a s . 6 a n d 7 of t h e

a m e n d e d s t a t e m e n t o f c l a i m t h e r e s p o n d e n t a l l eges , i n s u b s t a n c e ,

t h a t P I r Woollet t knew, a t a l l m a t e r i a l t i m e s p r i o r t o t h e

e x e c u t l o n of t h e f r a n c h l s e a g r e e m e n t w h i c h 1s I n issue and whlch

was e x e c u t e d i n J u l y 1 9 8 1 , t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t was I t s e l f a lessee

o f t h e p r e m i s e s a n d t h a t , I n a n y e v e n t , h e was o r a l l y informed by

t h e r e s p o n d e n t , b e f o r e h e x e c u t e d t h e agreement, o f t h e e x p i r y

d a t e of	t h e lease e n t e r e d I n t o b y	t h e	r e s p o n d e n t	i n	r e s p e c t o f	t h e
premlses.

V a r l o u s p a r t l c u l a r s were s o u g h t o f t h e s e a s s e r t l o n s a n d

i n t h e p a r t l c u l a r s t h e r e s p o n d e n t a s s e r t e d t h a t d u r i n g or about

S e p t e m b e r 1 9 7 9 , a n d a g a l n o n o r a b o u t 2 9 J u l y 1 9 8 1 , d u r i n g a

c o n v e r s a t i o n b e t w e e n Mr Woollett a n d o n e Raymond Colgate a t t h e

p r e m i s e s , 1-lr W o o l l e t t was l n f o r m e d b y t h e r e s p o n d e n t of t h e

e x i s t e n c e of t h e lease.

T h e r e s p o n d e n t a l s o g a v e p a r t i c u l a r s o f i t s a s s e r t i o n ,

p l e a d e d i n t h e d e f e n c e , t h a t M r Woollett h a d k n o w l e d g e of t h e

l e a s e s l t u a t i o n a t a l l m a t e r i a l t imes p r l o r t o e x e c u t i n g t h e

f r a n c h l s e agreement. H e e v l n c e d a n I n t e n t i o n a n d made known to

3 .

t h e r e s p o n d e n t h i s w l sh t o remaln o n t h e p r e m l s e s Eor a s l o n g as

h e c o u l d , a n d i t was s a i d t h a t t h l s was done o n or a b o u t 29 J u l y

1 9 8 1 a t t h e p r e m l s e s , o r a l l y t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s r e p r e s e n t a t l v e s ,

llessrs. Taylot- a n d B o l t o n ,

P a r t i c u l a r s were a l so g i v e n o f t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t Mr

W o o l l e t t was o r a l l y l n f o r m e d b y t h e r e s p o n d e n t , p r i o r t o h l s

e x e c u t i o n of t h e f r a n c h i s e a g r e e m e n t , of t h e e x p i r y d a t e of t h e

l e a s e , a n d I n t h o s e p a r t i c u l a r s t h e r e s p o n d e n t c o n t e n d e d t h a t , o n

or a b o u t 29 J u l y 1 9 8 1 , Mr V7oollett was Informed of t h e e x p l r y d a t e

of t h e l e a s e by ROSS Bolton and /o r Ron T a y l o r of t h e r e s p o n d e n t ,

d u r i n g a c o n v e r s a t i o n b e t w e e n those p e r s o n s a n d t h e a p p l i c a n t a t

i, A

t h e p r e m i s e s .

T u r n l n g t o t h e I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s : i n t e r r o g a t o r y 4 a s k s

i

w h e t h e r Raymond C o l g a t e a d v i s e d Mr Wool le t t , d u r i n g o r a b o u t

S e p t e m b e r 1 9 7 9 , t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t l e a s e d t h e s e r v i c e s t a t i o n

p r e m i s e s : a n d a s k s v a r i o u s o t h e r q u e s t i o n s I n r e l a t i o n t o t h a t

-_

m a t t e r w h i c h a r e n o t r e l e v a n t for present p u r p o s e s . I t l e a d s o n

t o i n t e r r o g a t o r y 5 a n d , u l t l m a t e l y , t o i n t e r r o g a t o r y 6 , w h i c h

s a y s :	-
" I f t h e a n s w e r t o i n t e r r o g a t o r y 4 above 1 s y e s , was t h e
second named S e c o n d A p p l l c a n t present a t s u c h m e e t i n g . "

The r e s p o n d e n t objected t o a n s w e r i n g t h a t i n t e r r o g a t o r y

o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a t I t is u n n e c e s s a r y , ~ r r e l e v a n t a n d seeks t o

c r o s s - e x a m i n e t h e r e s p o n d e n t .

4 .

.ar objectlon 1s takcn to interrogatory 7

I

whlch questions the respondent as to the presence of Mrs Noollett

i	at the alleged conversatlon with Bolton and Taylor on 29 July
i	1981.
Interrogatory 10 questions the respondent as to the presence of Mrs Woollett at the meetlng of 29 July 1 9 8 1 , and
i	I
interrogatory 1 2 raises the question of her presence at the
meeting with Bolton and Taylor.
The appllcants' case, which appears from para. 7 of the statement of clalm, 1s that they were not Informed of matters relating to the ownership of the premises.

The respondent's case 1s that the applicants, and, in

particular, Mr Woollett, were so Informed, and the particulars I

.1

indicate the alleged occasions on which that information was	I .
communicated to him.
It seems to me that lnterrogatories as to the presence of the second named second applicant at any of those meetings are not necessary. The applicants will presumably, as part of their case, assert and seek to prove that the conversatlons in question did not Involve any communication of the existence of the lease, and if Mrs Noollett is a witness to that effect, then, no doubt, she will be called to say that she was present and that no such communlcation or informatlon was conveyed.

5 .

Having said that, ~t is dlfflcult to see how it 1s a useful part of the appllcants' case to tender an interrogatory which asserts that Mrs Woollett was or was not present. If it asserts that she was present, ~t merely confirms what she is able

to say in any event and would, no doubt, have to be conceded by

the respondent. If it says she was not there, then it will not be

part of thelr case because their case would be that she was there.

Try as I may, I see no real ~ustification for the

administratlon of these interrogatories and, to that extent, the

motion will be dlsmissed.

Now, if I can turn to the second group of

interrogatories, 19 and 20 which also stand together, question 19

asks :

"did the Respondent at any time prior to 27 March 1984 inform the Applicants or any of them and if so who, about the offer by the lessor to sell the premises for $200,000."

Now, there 1s nothlng on the record hitherto to indicate what offer is being spoken about, nor does there appear on the pleadings to be any issue in respect of which the offer, if an offer were made to sell the premises, would appear to be directly materlal.

The applicants' complaint, centred around paras. 6 and

7 of the amended statement of claim, was that there was a failure

6.

l t o make t h e s t a t u t o r l l y r e q u l r e d d l s c l o s u r e i n J u l y 1 9 8 1 , a n d t h a t

l f a l l u r e w o u l d , n o d o u b t , b e r e l l e d u p o n t o s u p p o r t t h e c l a m f o r

1 c o m p e n s a t l o n u n d e r s . 2 2 of t h e Petroleum R e t a l l M a r k e t i n q

i 1 -

F r a n c h l s e Act 1 9 8 0 .

f. I

i

I

l T h e r e 1s a l s o t h e assertion, I n p a r a . 7 , t h a t t h e r e w a s a

s p e c i f l c n o n - d i s c l o s u r e a s to t h e ex is tence o f a l e a s e o v e r t h e

premises or, r a t h e r , t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t h e l d t h e p r e m i s e s u n d e r a

l e a s e

d u e

t o

e x p i r e

o n

3 1

A u g u s t

1 9 8 4 .

N e i t h e r

i n

t h e

p a r t l c u l a r s

I

!

nor i n a n y of t h e p l e a d r n g s 1s a n y r e f e r e n c e made t o an o f f e r .

I t IS suggested, by M r Stokes for t h e a p p l i c a n t s , t h a t

t h i s i n t e r r o g a t o r y i s m a t e r i a l b e c a u s e h a d t h e r e s p o n d e n t b e e n

t o l d p r i o r t o 27 March 1984 t h a t a n o f f e r h a d b e e n made t o sel l

t h e p r e m i s e s , t h l s m i g h t h a v e a f f e c t e d i t s c o n d u c t i n some way.

I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o see how i t w o u l d h a v e a f f e c t e d i ts

conduct h a v i n g r e g a r d t o t h e f a c t h a t w h a t is complazned o f is

Its e n t r y i n t o a f r a n c h i s e a g r e e m e n t o n 2 1 J u l y 1 9 8 1 .

I n t h e c ~ r c u m s t a n c e s , I am n o t p e r s u a d e d t h a t h i s

i n t e r r o g a t o r y 1s n e c e s s a r y a n d I w i l l n o t a c c e d e t o t h e m o t i o n i n

r e s p e c t of i t . A f o r t i o r i , q u t h e s t i o n c t a i n e d i n

i n t e r r o g a t o r y 20 does n o t seem to me t o h a v e a n y r e l e v a n c e a t a l l

t o any issue r e a s o n a b l y a r l s i n g o u t o f t h e p l e a d i n g s a n d I w l l l

n o t g r a n t t h e m o t i o n i n t h a t r e s p e c t e i t h e r .

, - I .

1

7.

i I

..

So the upshot is that thc motlon 1s dlsmlsscd, although :

I note that the respondent has wlthdrawn ~ t s ob~ectlons to

I I

interrogatories l(a), (b) and (c), whlch were the subject of the

i

I	motlon and 13(a), (b) and (c) and, on the other hand, the
!
I	appllcants no longer pursue l(d), (e) and (f) having regard to the
provlslon of the answers to (a), (b), and (c).

I certlfy that thls and the preceding

s1x ( 6 ) pages are a true copy hereln

i r

of the Reasons for Judgment	of his
Honour Mr Justice French.

Associate: -d &A

i	! -
I ..

Counsel : I

I

. for the Appllcant: Mr C. Stokes

i

I

instructed by Warren McDonald French & Harrison

I

. for the Respondent: Mr Paterniti

instructed by Parker & Parker

I

Date of Hearing:	8 May 1987
Date of Judgment:	8 May 1987

l

I

I

I

I I

i

I

i

1

I

I I

I

I

I