Vassallo v Landmark Racing Pty Ltd
[2015] VCC 1438
•15 October 2015
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CIVIL DIVISION
Case No.CI-14-03364
| STACEY LEA VASSALLO | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| LANDMARK RACING PTY LTD and CRANBOURNE TRAINING CENTRE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT | First Defendant Second Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE BOWMAN | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 11 October 2015 | |
DATE OF RULING: | 15 October 2015 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Vassallo v Landmark Racing Pty Ltd & Anor | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2015] VCC 1438 | |
REASONS FOR RULING
---
Catchwords: Interrogatories – large number containing numerous parts, some of which are objectionable – whether plaintiff should be required to answer any of the Interrogatories – whether, in the circumstances, the Court should attempt to separate non-objectionable from objectionable Interrogatories – authorities considered – factors to be taken into account.
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr T Monti QC | Slater & Gordon |
| For the First Defendant | Mr N Dunstan | Minter Ellison |
| For the Second Defendant | - | Mr D Collins of Moray & Agnew |
HIS HONOUR:
1 Two Summonses bring this matter before me. I heard legal argument in relation to the first defendant’s Summons of 6 October 2015. I am to determine that before dealing with the plaintiff’s Summons of 1 October 2015. The hearing date in this case is rapidly approaching and obviously these preliminary matters should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.
2 In essence, the first defendant, by its Summons, seeks an order that the plaintiff file and serve Further and Better Answers to its Interrogatories. The plaintiff objects to answering the Interrogatories on the grounds that they are too wide, prolix, oppressive, vexatious and the like.
3 Mr T Monti QC of counsel appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. Mr N Dunstan of counsel appeared on behalf of the first defendant. Mr D Collins, solicitor for the second defendant, attended, but took no part in the argument which, apart from possible impact upon the hearing date, did not involve his client.
4 As stated, the plaintiff has objected to answering any of the Interrogatories of the first defendant. The argument of Mr Monti QC as to why the plaintiff has allegedly rightfully adopted this position is simple. He asserts that the sheer number of the Interrogatories, combined with the fact that some of them are irrelevant, oppressive, prolix and the like, entitles the plaintiff to refuse to answer any of them. He argues that it is not for the Court to wade through the Interrogatories and effectively settle them for the first defendant. He submits that, for the plaintiff to attempt to answer them, would be an expensive, time-wasting and unjustifiable exercise. Therefore, the complete set of Interrogatories should be ignored. He referred to extracts from Civil Procedure Victoria by Bailey and Arthur and to some long-established authorities.
5 In essence, Mr Dunstan submitted that, whilst there may be some doubt concerning the validity of some of the Interrogatories, many were valid and the plaintiff should at least have answered, or attempted to answer, those Interrogatories.
6 I might add that an additional argument of Mr Dunstan to the effect that the first defendant answered the plaintiff’s Interrogatories is not to the point. Apparently the first defendant took no objection to them. Whether or not they were equally flawed is not for me to say. The first defendant was interrogated and answered without objection.
7 Whilst the background facts were not explained in great detail, the case, as I understand it, is not a complex one. The plaintiff, a young female track rider, was riding a horse in work at Cranbourne Racecourse when it was effectively spooked and veered through a gap in the running rail. In so doing, it crushed the plaintiff’s right leg against a rail. She suffered injuries for which she sues both the entity by which she alleges she was employed, being the first defendant, and the second defendant, effectively the proprietor and occupier of Cranbourne Racecourse. Thus, there is a claim for damages for personal injury. It is to be noted that pecuniary loss damages are not sought. Apparently employment has been denied by the first defendant, it asserting that the plaintiff was a sub-contractor.
8 The issues are, as stated, comparatively simple. The areas for interrogation are readily recognisable.
9 I have inspected the Interrogatories. In my opinion, the argument of Mr Monti is to be preferred. Many of the Interrogatories, and the Interrogatories viewed as a whole, are prolix, oppressive and irrelevant.
10 The Interrogatories of the first defendant, on their face, number 53. However, when the actual number of questions is examined, by my reckoning such questions tally 172. Some of these 172 questions then make further enquiries which seem to me to be patently oppressive. For example, that the plaintiff should be required to provide the usual details – dates, places, acts, etcetera – of every leisure and recreational activity in which she engaged over at least two 12 month periods seems to me to be patently oppressive. That she should be interrogated as to her mother’s activities is somewhat staggering. Even though she is not claiming pecuniary loss damages, there is an attempt to interrogate her in detail concerning her post-injury employment. There is also an attempt to interrogate her in detail concerning her pre-injury involvement in pony club activities. These are but a few examples.
11 There is a long line of authority dating back to the 19th century, involving cases like Oppenheim & Co v Sheffield [1893] 1 QB 5 and Cawley v Burton (1883) 32 WR 33 to the effect that a Court is not obliged to pick out relevant Interrogatories from a mass of irrelevant or otherwise objectionable ones. I would also refer to Austin v Austin [1905] VLR 377 and Lyte v Currey [1927] VLR 472, in which latter case Mann J declined to pick out from Interrogatories the few that might be relevant.
12 In Austin, A’Beckett J cited with approval the decision in Cawley, quoting the following passage from the Judgment of Lord Coleridge LJ:
“The question is whether interrogatories which in mass are vague and unnecessary ought to be allowed. I am far from saying that none of them is good; but the plaintiffs are not bound to answer in the form in which they are put. They are unnecessary and vexatious. I decline to be dragged into settling lengthy interrogatories.”
13 A’Beckett J also quoted the following passage from Grove J in Cawley:
“It has been ruled…that a Judge is not bound to dissect interrogatories; he is not bound to settle them for the parties.”
14 Further, the following was said by Myers J in American Flange & Manufacturing Co Inc v Rheem Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) (1965) NSWR 193 at 196:
“It was established under the earlier English rules that interrogatories which were prolix and oppressive or unnecessary could be disallowed as a whole, even though some of them were proper, and that the Court was not required to go through interrogatories of that kind and ascertain which were admissible and which were not. It was also established that the Court was entitled to come to the conclusion that interrogatories were of the kind specified on a general view of the interrogatories and indeed that the mere obligation of the opposite party and the Court to go through the interrogatories and pick out from the large number that were improper with the comparative few that were allowable, was itself unreasonable and itself could constitute oppressiveness…It is, too, within my own personal knowledge that the practice established by the earlier cases has always been followed in this Court…”
15 Australian Courts, including this Court, have long complained of and ruled against Interrogatories of the nature of those served by the first defendant. Just one example is the observations of Miles CJ in Ryan v Federal Capital Press Pty Ltd (1990) 101 FLR 396.
16 In my view, the objection taken by the plaintiff to answer any of these Interrogatories is well-founded. She is not so obliged.
Conclusion
17 The first defendant’s Summons is dismissed.
0
1
0