Turner v State of New South Wales

In Turner v State of New South Wales, the plaintiff, Turner, brought a claim against his former employer, the State of New South Wales, for malicious prosecution, wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. The defendants filed a detailed request for particulars, which required over 200 responses. Turner sought to have the request for particulars struck out or for an order requiring the defendants to provide answers to the particulars. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issue before the court was whether the defendants' request for particulars was made for a proper purpose. Turner argued that the request was excessive and not necessary to identify the case to be made out at trial, while the defendants contended that the request was necessary to understand the specifics of Turner's claims. The court had to determine whether the request for particulars was made for a proper purpose, and if not, whether it should be struck out or if orders should be made for the provision of certain answers.

The court found that the defendants' request for particulars was excessive and not made for a proper purpose. However, the court was not satisfied that the request should be struck out entirely. Instead, the court ordered that certain answers to the particulars be provided. The court held that the proper purpose or function of particulars is to provide what is reasonably necessary to identify the case to be made out at trial. The court considered that the defendants' request for particulars was not necessary to identify the case to be made out at trial, and therefore, some of the answers requested were not necessary. However, the court found that some of the answers requested were necessary to identify the case to be made out at trial and ordered that those answers be provided.

The court ordered that certain answers to the particulars be provided within 28 days. The court did not strike out the request for particulars but ordered that only certain answers be provided, which were necessary to identify the case to be made out at trial. The court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that requests for particulars are made for a proper purpose and are necessary to identify the case to be made out at trial.