Whitting v Poeche

The parties involved in this matter were Whitting, the plaintiff, and Poeche, the defendant. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the plaintiff sought an order for the defendant to answer interrogatories and an order for costs. The dispute centred on whether the interrogatories were properly served and whether the amended defence was valid. The interrogatories in question were served on the defendant's solicitor, but the defendant's letter of appearance was not signed. The plaintiff argued that the interrogatories were not properly served and sought an order for the defendant to answer them. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the interrogatories were not properly served and that the amended defence should be allowed.

The court was required to determine whether the interrogatories were properly served and, if so, whether the defendant had to answer them. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the amended defence was valid and whether it should be allowed. The court considered the procedural rules governing the service of interrogatories and the requirements for an amended defence. The court found that the interrogatories were not properly served because the defendant's letter of appearance was not signed. However, the court also found that the defendant had not been prejudiced by the improper service, and therefore, the interrogatories were valid. The court also found that the amended defence was valid and should be allowed.

The court ordered that the defendant answer the interrogatories and that the amended defence be allowed. The court also ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the motions. The court found that the plaintiff had not been successful in their application for an order for costs and that the defendant was entitled to their costs. The court emphasised the importance of following procedural rules and the need for parties to ensure that their letters of appearance are signed. The court also noted that the amended defence was valid and that the defendant was entitled to rely on it. Overall, the court's decision was that the interrogatories were valid, the amended defence was allowed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs.