Wilson v Tetley - [2003] NSWSC 256

CITATION: Wilson v Tetley & Anor [2003] NSWSC 256 revised - 03/04/2003

HEARING DATE(S): 1/4/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
1 April 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Gzell J

DECISION: Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE - Discovery and Interrogatories - Whether interrogatories requiring the giving of information rendering an action for damages for breach of contract unnecessary, can be administered - Defendant refusing to name bull from which semen taken to fertilise cows under an embryo flush programme - Whether interrogatories are "necessary" in terms of Supreme Court Rules 1970, Pt 24 r 5(2) - Whether mandatory injuction requiring answers to interrogatories should be made - Whether the defendant should be orally examined as to the identity of the bull

LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Rules 1970

CASES CITED: Murphy v Murphy (1998) 1 WLR 282
A v C [1981] QB 956 at 959
Boyle v Downs [1979] 1 NSWLR 192

PARTIES :
Dennis Paul Wilson - Plaintiff
jason Tetley - Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1955/03

COUNSEL: Mr J S Wheelhouse (For Plaintiff
Mr Jason Tetley (In Person)

SOLICITORS: Susan Hill, Solicitor (Plaintiff)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

GZELL J

TUESDAY 1 APRIL 2003

1955/03 DENNIS PAUL WILSON v JASON TETLEY & ANOR

Extempore JUDGMENT

1 The plaintiff conducts a business of breeding Murray Grey cattle. The defendant was engaged to attend to the culling of cattle for sale, the general health and well-being of the cattle by administering drenches, inoculations, vaccinations and the like and the preparation of cattle for showing. The plaintiff conducted an embryo flush programme with respect to his herd, involving the selection of an appropriate female cow, the administration of drugs to the chosen cow to produce a large number of eggs for insemination and fertilisation, the artificial insemination of the cow when she was ready with the semen of the bull and arranging and causing to be carried out by a qualified technician the flushing of the eggs from the cow.

2 The defendant was required to select cows for artificial breeding, prepare them for the embryo flush to be administered by another, to choose the bulls and record the identity of the bulls whose semen had been used to artificially inseminate the selected cow and to attend upon the embryo flush technician.

3 There is evidence before me that the identity of the sire is critical to the process, as without this information embryos are either valueless or almost valueless, whereas a well-chosen sire with good pedigree with a dam of good pedigree could make an embryo worth up to $3000 or thereabouts.

4 With respect to the last flush programme carried out in December 2002 with the flush effected in January 2003, the defendant failed to record the identity of the bull from which the semen was taken with respect to two cows called Queen Lylia and Grey Dame. The defendant has refused to provide that information on request and the certificates in relation to the embryos in question do not contain the name…

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.

Continue reading Wilson v Tetley

Details

AGLC: Wilson v Tetley [2003] NSWSC 256
Case: [2003] NSWSC 256
Decision Date: 1 April 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Wilson v Tetley involved a dispute over the administration of interrogatories and discovery in a case concerning a breach of contract. The plaintiff sought damages for the defendant's failure to name the bull from which semen was taken to fertilise cows under an embryo flush programme. The defendant objected to answering interrogatories that required the disclosure of information that would make an action for damages unnecessary, arguing that such interrogatories were not necessary within the meaning of Supreme Court Rules 1970, Part 24 rule 5(2). The court had to determine whether the interrogatories were necessary and whether a mandatory injunction should be made to compel the defendant to answer them. Additionally, the court considered whether the defendant should be orally examined regarding the identity of the bull.

The legal issues that arose centred on the interpretation of the Supreme Court Rules and the discretion of the court in administering interrogatories. The court had to assess whether the interrogatories were necessary and relevant to the proceedings, and whether compelling the defendant to answer them was appropriate. The court also considered the balance between the parties' rights to discovery and the defendant's right to privacy and protection from unnecessary disclosure.

The court held that the interrogatories were indeed necessary and relevant to the proceedings, as the information sought was crucial to the plaintiff's case. The court found that the defendant's objections to answering the interrogatories were not well-founded, and that compelling the defendant to answer them was appropriate. The court emphasised the importance of the parties' rights to discovery and the need to ensure that the proceedings were conducted fairly and efficiently. The court also noted that the defendant's refusal to answer the interrogatories had the potential to prejudice the plaintiff's case and delay the proceedings.

As a result of the court's decision, the defendant was ordered to answer the interrogatories and provide the requested information. The court also made a mandatory injunction requiring the defendant to answer the interrogatories. Additionally, the court ordered that the defendant be orally examined as to the identity of the bull, which was a crucial piece of information in the case. The court's decision ensured that the proceedings could proceed efficiently and fairly, and that the parties had access to the necessary information to pursue their respective claims and defences.

Orders