WorkCover Queensland v J. Hutchinson Pty Ltd (ACN 009 778 330)

In the matter of WorkCover Queensland v J. Hutchinson Pty Ltd (ACN 009 778 330), the plaintiff sought to deliver interrogatories to the defendant, its director, and a non-party, Mr David Row, a former employee with relevant knowledge. The plaintiff sought leave to adjourn the application concerning the defendant until after receiving answers to the interrogatories from Mr Row. The central issue before the court was whether a non-party could be interrogated under rule 299(1)(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) to determine if a defendant or another person would be an appropriate party to the current proceeding and whether leave should be granted to deliver the interrogatories to Mr Row.

The court examined the applicability of rule 299(1)(b) UCPR and the broader context of discovery and interrogatories within civil proceedings. The court noted that the rules allow for interrogatories to be directed at non-parties who possess relevant knowledge, particularly when such knowledge is pertinent to determining party appropriateness or other significant procedural issues. Given Mr Row's former employment and the relevance of his knowledge to the proceeding, the court found that it was appropriate to permit the plaintiff to interrogate him. The court also considered the plaintiff's need for the information to effectively manage the case and determine further actions against the defendant or other parties.

Consequently, the court granted leave for the plaintiff to deliver interrogatories to Mr Row, amended to provide a 21-day response period. The plaintiff's application concerning the defendant was adjourned, and costs were reserved for later determination. The decision underscores the importance of allowing non-parties with relevant knowledge to be interrogated where necessary to inform procedural decisions in ongoing litigation.