Zhang v Popovic (No 2)

The respondents, including a company and its directors, were sued by the applicant for various breaches of Australian Consumer Law. The applicant sought to have the respondents answer interrogatories concerning their involvement in the operation of a website. The respondents objected to answering the interrogatories on the grounds that the information sought was already available in the written statements provided in the proceeding. The applicant applied for an order to compel the respondents to answer the interrogatories. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court, where the applicant was represented by Mr C Zhang, and the respondents were represented by Mr B Popovic. The court was required to determine whether the interrogatories were necessary and if there were special reasons for requiring the respondents to answer them, given that the information was already available in the written statements.

The court found that the interrogatories were necessary as they sought information that was not necessarily included in the written statements provided by the respondents. The court held that the information sought was relevant to the case and that the interrogatories were not merely repetitive of the existing written statements. The court also found that there were special reasons for requiring the respondents to answer the interrogatories, as the information was necessary to understand the respondents' involvement in the operation of the website. The court rejected the respondents' argument that the information was already available in the written statements, finding that the interrogatories sought specific information that was not necessarily included in the written statements.

The court granted the applicant's application to compel the respondents to answer the interrogatories. The court held that the interrogatories were necessary and that there were special reasons for requiring the respondents to answer them. The court also found that the respondents' objection to answering the interrogatories was not well-founded. The court did not make any orders for costs.

In summary, the court found that the interrogatories were necessary and that there were special reasons for requiring the respondents to answer them, despite the information being available in the written statements. The court granted the applicant's application to compel the respondents to answer the interrogatories and did not make any orders for costs.