WILLIAMS v Nicoski
[2000] WASC 317
•20 DECEMBER 2000
WILLIAMS -v- NICOSKI & ANOR [2000] WASC 317
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASC 317 | |
| 20/12/2000 | |||
| Case No: | CIV:1404/1999 | 17 NOVEMBER 2000 | |
| Coram: | MASTER BREDMEYER | 19/12/00 | |
| 5 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application allowed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | TROY WILLIAMS GEORGETTE NICOSKI NUTRIMETICS INTERNATIONAL (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD |
Catchwords: | Leave to administer interrogatories |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Nil Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- Plaintiff
AND
GEORGETTE NICOSKI
First Defendant
NUTRIMETICS INTERNATIONAL (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
Second Defendant
Catchwords:
Leave to administer interrogatories
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Application allowed
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr I Morison
First Defendant : Mr R G S Harrison
Second Defendant : Mr M S Van Brakel
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Healy Pynt
First Defendant : Deacons Graham & James
Second Defendant : Clayton Utz
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
(Page 3)
1 MASTER BREDMEYER: I have delivered oral reasons for giving leave to the plaintiff to administer certain interrogatories to the second defendant. I reserved on the question of costs. On costs I consider that there has been a reasonable win for both the plaintiff and the second defendant. The plaintiff was given leave to ask a lot of questions, and conversely the second defendant has succeeded in having a lot of questions deleted. In the circumstances I consider costs in the cause is appropriate and I will so order.
2 I now turn to the plaintiff's application for leave to interrogate the first defendant. I refer here to the plaintiff's amended minute of proposed interrogatories to the first defendant of 12 December 2000. I will be short with these reasons because I have given fuller reasons in dealing with the plaintiff's application against the second defendant. I will adopt the reasons I gave there and give brief reasons only.
3 Questions 1 and 2 I reject as not necessary. The plaintiff can lead evidence on question 1 and the answer to question 2 is obvious from Ms Wallace-Harrison's affidavit and the limited agency form attached to that affidavit. Clause 1(a) states: "As a consultant I agree to act as an independent agent for Nutrimetics".
4 Between question 2 and 3 should come this heading:
"Look at the Second Defendant's Discovered Document 1".
5 Questions 3 and 4 I allow.
6 Question 5 I allow as amended. The question is to read:
"Did any document accompany the document when it was sent to Nutrimetics?"
- I have underlined the new words. The first defendant cannot really say what was received by Nutrimetics.
7 Question 6 I allow.
8 Questions 7 and 8 I reject as not necessary.
9 Prior to question 9 should be inserted this heading:
"Look at Second Defendant's Discovered Document 3".
10 I allow questions 9 to 11.
(Page 4)
11 Immediately above question 12 should appear the words:
"Look at Second Defendant's Discovered Document 4".
12 Questions 12 to 14 I allow.
13 Question 15 I reject as not necessary and as an interrogatory trying to get further discovery. See Seaman par 27.1.8.
14 Questions 16 to 17 I allow.
15 Question 18 I reject as seeking to get further and better discovery by an interrogatory.
16 Questions 19 to 20 I allow.
17 Question 21 I reject as seeking to get further and better discovery by an interrogatory.
18 Questions 22 to 36 I allow.
19 Questions 37 to 41 I reject as not necessary.
20 Immediately prior to question 42 should appear this heading:
"Look at Plaintiff's Discovered Document 30, statements".
21 Question 42 I allow.
22 Questions 43 and 44 I reject as not necessary. The answers are obvious.
23 Questions 45 to 50 I allow.
24 Questions 51 to 58 I reject. The articles in Tempo magazine speak for themselves and the plaintiff can give evidence of the achievements and what is meant by an "upline" etc.
25 Immediately before question 59 should come this heading:
"Look at Plaintiff's Discovered Document 37, consultant enquiry Danielle Chalmers".
26 Questions 59 to 60 I allow.
27 Above question 61 should appear the heading:
(Page 5)
- "Look at Plaintiff's Discovered Document 38, consultant enquiry Plaintiff and Ms Nicoski".
28 Questions 61 and 62 I allow.
29 Immediately before question 63 should appear this heading:
"Look at Plaintiff's Discovered Document 55, announcement of appointment of Plaintiff and Ms Nicoski as Executive Sales Directors".
30 Question 63 I reject. The document speaks for itself.
31 Question 64 I allow.
32 Questions 65 and 66 I reject as unnecessary.
33 Immediately before question 67 should appear this heading:
"Look at the Discovered Document 60, pages from Tempo February 1998".
34 Question 67 I reject as not necessary.
35 Question 68 I allow as introductory to question 69.
36 Question 69 I allow.
37 Question 70 I reject as not necessary.
38 I will give leave to the plaintiff to administer interrogatories to the first defendant in terms of the plaintiff's amended minute of proposed interrogatories to the first defendant of 12 December 2000 as further amended by me in these reasons. The first defendant is to file and serve answers or objections to those interrogatories on or before 31 January 2001. I consider that both the plaintiff and the first defendant have had significant wins on this application. The plaintiff has gained leave to ask a lot of questions which he thinks are important to his case. The first defendant on the other hand has been successful in opposing and securing the deletion of many of the questions. In the circumstances I consider costs in the cause is the appropriate order. I would direct that the plaintiff annexe to the interrogatories the documents referred to therein. This will save the first defendant from having to hunt through her documents in order to answer some of the questions.
0
0
1