Re Fuller [1999] FCA 6

Re Fuller [1999] FCA 6

Leave to administer interrogatories is confined to interrogatories concerning matters in question between the interrogating party and the party served. Order 16 rule 5 does not broaden that scope. Because no remedy or final order was sought against Michael John Fuller, there was no real matter at issue between him and the trustee and interrogatories to him would in any event be oppressive. Interrogatories against Mrs Fuller, the Wilkinsons and St Helier were authorised to the extent they were adjectivally relevant to the claims pleaded against them, including the establishment and use of the Fuller Bare Trust funds, and St Helier's confidentiality objection was not made out in the absence...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 January 1999
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Bankruptcy Related Proceedings Concerning Leave to Administer Interrogatories / Application for Leave to Administer Interrogatories
Outcome
Leave to administer interrogatories to Michael John Fuller should be refused; leave should be given for interrogatories against other respondents to the extent consistent with the stated principles, with orders to be made after further submissions on form.
Legal Topics
['interrogatories' 'leave to Administer Interrogatories' 'oppression' 'matters in Question Between Parties' 'confidentiality' 'bare Trust']
['practice and Procedure' 'bankruptcy' 'trusts'] ['interrogatories' 'leave to Administer Interrogatories' 'oppression' 'matters in Question Between Parties' 'confidentiality' 'bare Trust']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure; Bankruptcy Related Proceedings Concerning Leave to Administer Interrogatories / Application for Leave to Administer Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the interrogatories sought to be administered relate to matters in question between the interrogating party and the parties served under Order 16 rule 1 of the Federal Court Rules.' 'Whether Order 16 rule 5 of the Federal Court Rules permits interrogatories beyond matters at issue between the interrogating party and the party being interrogated.' 'Whether it would be oppressive to administer interrogatories to Michael John Fuller, a bankrupt and party against whom no final order or remedy is sought.' 'Whether St Helier Trust Company Limited could resist interrogatories on the basis that answers would breach Jersey confidentiality requirements.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to administer interrogatories is confined to interrogatories concerning matters in question between the interrogating party and the party served. Order 16 rule 5 does not broaden that scope. Because no remedy or final order was sought against Michael John Fuller, there was no real matter at issue between him and the trustee and interrogatories to him would in any event be oppressive. Interrogatories against Mrs Fuller, the Wilkinsons and St Helier were authorised to the extent they were adjectivally relevant to the claims pleaded against them, including the establishment and use of the Fuller Bare Trust funds, and St Helier's confidentiality objection was not made out in the absence...

Court Disposition

Leave to administer interrogatories to Michael John Fuller should be refused; leave should be given for interrogatories against other respondents to the extent consistent with the stated principles, with orders to be made after further submissions on form.

Orders

  • ['The Court indicated it would make orders when the matter next came before it.' 'The Court would hear brief submissions on the particular form of the interrogatories and whether they followed the stated principles.']