National Auto Glass Supplies (Australia) Pty Limited v Nielsen & Moller Autoglass (NSW) Pty Limited (No 4) [2006] FCA 1851

National Auto Glass Supplies (Australia) Pty Limited v Nielsen & Moller Autoglass (NSW) Pty Limited (No 4) [2006] FCA 1851

Although the Court would have been minded, if necessary, to dispense with non-compliance with the rules concerning service of the interrogatories because they had come to the notice of the second and third respondents and the first respondent, relief was refused because the applicants had already used selected answers in their case and had closed their case before seeking further answers; in those circumstances it was entirely inappropriate to require any party to address the interrogatories further.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion in Federal Court Proceedings Seeking Further Answers to Interrogatories / Sixth Day of Trial After the Applicants Had Closed Their Case
Outcome
Notice of Motion filed 11 December 2006 dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['interrogatories' 'service of Documents' 'dispensation With Compliance With Rules' 'reopening After Close of Case' 'costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['interrogatories' 'service of Documents' 'dispensation With Compliance With Rules' 'reopening After Close of Case' '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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion in Federal Court Proceedings Seeking Further Answers to Interrogatories / Sixth Day of Trial After the Applicants Had Closed Their Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should be granted relief on a Notice of Motion filed on 11 December 2006 seeking further answers to interrogatories from the respondents.' 'Whether non-compliance with the service requirements for interrogatories should be dispensed with under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Federal Court Rules.' 'Whether it was appropriate to require further answers to interrogatories after the applicants had closed their case and had tendered selected interrogatories and answers in evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Court would have been minded, if necessary, to dispense with non-compliance with the rules concerning service of the interrogatories because they had come to the notice of the second and third respondents and the first respondent, relief was refused because the applicants had already used selected answers in their case and had closed their case before seeking further answers; in those circumstances it was entirely inappropriate to require any party to address the interrogatories further.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion filed 11 December 2006 dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Grants leave to the applicants to file in Court an Amended Notice to Respondents to Answer Interrogatories dated 6 November 2006.' 'Grants leave to the applicants to file in Court a Notice of Motion dated 11 December 2006 returnable instanter and an affidavit in support of Alice Chen affirmed 11 December 2006.'...