SOLOMON -v- SUMNER [2002] WASC 261

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASC 261
Case No:	CIV:1929/2000	Heard:	28 OCTOBER 2002
Coram:	HASLUCK J	Delivered:	28/10/02
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JULIA SOLOMON JAN SUMNER
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Defamation Application for leave to serve interrogatories Issue of delay Issue concerning form of questions Leave granted Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Child Welfare Act, s 10 Rules of the Supreme Court, O 27 r 1
Case References:	Dalecoast Pty Ltd v Monisse [1999] WASCA 103 Hennessey v Wright [1890] 24 QBD 445 Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association (1986) ATPR 40-726 Irvine v State of Western Australia [2000] WASCA 56 Makin v Troy, unreported; SCt of WA; (Master Adams); Library No 940256; 18 May 1994 Marriott v Chamberlain [1886] 17 QBD 145 Mulley v Manifold (1959) 103 CLR 341 Re Strachan [1895] 1 CH 439 Frater v Ward & Anor [1998] WASC 118 Howell v Haines, unreported; Court of Appeal of NSW; 15 November 1996 Nella v Kingia Pty Ltd [ 1989] ATPR 50 Seng Fai Chan & Ors v West Australian Newspapers Ltd & Ors [1998] WASC 11 Tuxworth v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1993) 113 FLR 391

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : SOLOMON -v- SUMNER [2002] WASC 261 CORAM : HASLUCK J HEARD : 28 OCTOBER 2002 DELIVERED : 28 OCTOBER 2002 FILE NO/S : CIV 1929 of 2000 BETWEEN : JULIA SOLOMON

Plaintiff

AND

JAN SUMNER

Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Defamation - Application for leave to serve interrogatories - Issue of delay - Issue concerning form of questions - Leave granted - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Child Welfare Act, s 10

Rules of the Supreme Court, O 27 r 1

Result:

Application allowed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : In person

Defendant : Mr I Armeli

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : In person

Defendant : Phillips Fox

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Dalecoast Pty Ltd v Monisse [1999] WASCA 103
Hennessey v Wright [1890] 24 QBD 445
Hughes v Western Australian Cricket Association (1986) ATPR 40-726
Irvine v State of Western Australia [2000] WASCA 56
Makin v Troy, unreported; SCt of WA; (Master Adams); Library No 940256; 18 May 1994
Marriott v Chamberlain [1886] 17 QBD 145
Mulley v Manifold (1959) 103 CLR 341
Re Strachan [1895] 1 CH 439

Case(s) also cited:

Frater v Ward & Anor [1998] WASC 118
Howell v Haines, unreported; Court of Appeal of NSW; 15 November 1996
Nella v Kingia Pty Ltd [ 1989] ATPR 50
Seng Fai Chan & Ors v West Australian Newspapers Ltd & Ors [1998] WASC 11
Tuxworth v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1993) 113 FLR 391

(Page 3)

1 HASLUCK J: This is an application by the plaintiff in a defamation action for leave to issue interrogatories. The nature of the application is reflected in a Chamber summons dated 8 August…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Solomon v Sumner and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] WASC 261
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, Julia Solomon filed a defamation action against Jan Sumner. Solomon sought leave to serve interrogatories to Sumner in accordance with O 27 r 1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. The interrogatories aimed to establish Sumner's knowledge and understanding of the plaintiff's professional role and the Reading for Sure programme. Sumner objected to the interrogatories on grounds of delay and vagueness. The court considered the principles of case management and the relevance of the interrogatories to the issues in the case. It found that while some interrogatories were vague and oppressive, others were relevant and necessary for the fair resolution of the case. The court granted leave for most of the interrogatories, with some modifications and objections allowed regarding specific questions. Answers to the interrogatories were to be provided within 21 days.

Orders