National Auto Glass Supplies (Australia) Pty Limited v Nielsen & Moller Autoglass (NSW) Pty Limited (No 3) [2006] FCA 1850

National Auto Glass Supplies (Australia) Pty Limited v Nielsen & Moller Autoglass (NSW) Pty Limited (No 3) [2006] FCA 1850

The tender of interrogatories 30 and 31 and their answers against the second respondent was rejected because the answer to interrogatory 30 was not an answer and interrogatory 31 depended on an affirmative answer that could not be discerned. The tender of interrogatory 68 and its answer was rejected because the answer to interrogatory 69 was so connected that interrogatory 68 ought not be used without it. The tender of interrogatory 20 and its answer against the third respondent was rejected because interrogatory 21 and its answer were so connected that interrogatory 20 ought not be used without them.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Ruling on Tender of Interrogatories and Answers / During Hearing
Outcome
Tender rejected in part.
Legal Topics
['interrogatories' 'admissibility of Interrogatory Answers' 'discretionary Rejection of Evidence' 'federal Court Procedure']
['evidence' 'civil Procedure'] ['interrogatories' 'admissibility of Interrogatory Answers' 'discretionary Rejection of Evidence' 'federal Court Procedure']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Ruling on Tender of Interrogatories and Answers / During Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the tender of interrogatories 30 and 31 and the answers thereto against the second respondent should be rejected because the answer to interrogatory 30 was not an answer and interrogatory 31 depended on an affirmative answer to interrogatory 30.' 'Whether interrogatory 68 and the answer thereto against the second respondent should be rejected unless interrogatory 69 and its answer were also tendered.' 'Whether interrogatory 20 and the answer thereto against the third respondent should be rejected unless interrogatory 21 and its answer were also tendered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The tender of interrogatories 30 and 31 and their answers against the second respondent was rejected because the answer to interrogatory 30 was not an answer and interrogatory 31 depended on an affirmative answer that could not be discerned. The tender of interrogatory 68 and its answer was rejected because the answer to interrogatory 69 was so connected that interrogatory 68 ought not be used without it. The tender of interrogatory 20 and its answer against the third respondent was rejected because interrogatory 21 and its answer were so connected that interrogatory 20 ought not be used without them.

Court Disposition

Tender rejected in part.

Orders

  • ["The tender of the following interrogatories and the answers thereto contained in the 'Second Respondents Verified Answers to Interrogatories' be rejected – Nos. 30, 31 and 68." "The tender of the following interrogatories and answers thereto contained in the 'Third Respondent's Verified Answers to Interrogatories'...