Crespin v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2015] NSWDC 212

Crespin v Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2015] NSWDC 212

Most of the disputed interrogatories were ordered to be answered because, having regard to the defendants' particulars of justification, discovery and the apparent approach to proof, they were necessary under r 22.1 and likely to facilitate proof of matters that would otherwise take time and witnesses to prove. However, interrogatories seeking attachment of documents could be satisfied by identifying relevant discovered documents; interrogatories 23 and 24 were not to be answered in their current form because they required redrafting to identify the asserted agreement or settlement with National Australia Bank more precisely; requests for drafts of the contract and interrogatory 9 failed...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings / Defendants' Application for Orders That Plaintiffs Answer Interrogatories
Outcome
Application substantially granted in favour of the defendants, with some interrogatories refused or required to be redrafted and costs ordered as defendants' costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['interrogatories' 'justification Defence' 'necessity Under R 22.1' 'discovery Documents' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'costs']
['tort' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['interrogatories' 'justification Defence' 'necessity Under R 22.1' 'discovery Documents' 'legal Professional Privilege' 'costs']

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

Civil Defamation Proceedings / Defendants' Application for Orders That Plaintiffs Answer Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs should be ordered to answer specified interrogatories in defamation proceedings where the defendants pleaded a s 25 defence of justification.' 'Whether the proposed interrogatories were necessary at the time of the order under r 22.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether some interrogatories improperly sought additional discovery, privileged material, or were cross-examining or fishing.' "Whether costs should be awarded to the defendants despite the defendants' earlier unsatisfactory submissions causing loss of a hearing date."]

Ratio Decidendi

Most of the disputed interrogatories were ordered to be answered because, having regard to the defendants' particulars of justification, discovery and the apparent approach to proof, they were necessary under r 22.1 and likely to facilitate proof of matters that would otherwise take time and witnesses to prove. However, interrogatories seeking attachment of documents could be satisfied by identifying relevant discovered documents; interrogatories 23 and 24 were not to be answered in their current form because they required redrafting to identify the asserted agreement or settlement with National Australia Bank more precisely; requests for drafts of the contract and interrogatory 9 failed...

Court Disposition

Application substantially granted in favour of the defendants, with some interrogatories refused or required to be redrafted and costs ordered as defendants' costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ['The first plaintiff is directed to answer interrogatories 1, 2(b)(i), 2(b)(ii), 2(c)(i), 2(c)(ii), 2(c)(iii) (excluding 2(c)(iii)(B)), 3, 4, 6(d) to 6(e) (noting that reference to "documents" in 6(e) will be satisfied by reference to the relevant discovery number), 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 (noting the answer to...