Sagittarian Enterprises Pty Ltd & Ors v Ampol Ltd [1987] FCA 330

Sagittarian Enterprises Pty Ltd & Ors v Ampol Ltd [1987] FCA 330

The interrogatories concerning Mrs Woollett's presence at meetings were unnecessary because, if she was present and no relevant communication was made, the applicants could call her to prove that fact; the interrogatories would either merely confirm the applicants' own evidence or contradict their case. The interrogatories concerning the alleged offer to sell the premises were not shown to be material to any issue on the pleadings, which concerned alleged non-disclosure in July 1981 and entry into the franchise agreement, and no pleaded issue referred to an offer. The motion was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 1987
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion in Federal Court Proceedings / Motion Seeking Orders That the Respondent Make and File Further Answers to Interrogatories
Outcome
Motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['interrogatories' 'further Answers to Interrogatories' 'relevance and Necessity of Interrogatories' 'petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Disclosure']
['civil Procedure' 'franchising'] ['interrogatories' 'further Answers to Interrogatories' 'relevance and Necessity of Interrogatories' 'petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Disclosure']

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

Notice of Motion in Federal Court Proceedings / Motion Seeking Orders That the Respondent Make and File Further Answers to Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent should be required to answer interrogatories about whether Kaye Lorraine Woollett was present at meetings where the respondent allegedly informed Raymond Arthur Woollett of the existence of a lease over the premises.' 'Whether the respondent should be required to answer interrogatories about whether it informed the applicants before 27 March 1984 of an offer by the lessor to sell the premises for $200,000.']

Ratio Decidendi

The interrogatories concerning Mrs Woollett's presence at meetings were unnecessary because, if she was present and no relevant communication was made, the applicants could call her to prove that fact; the interrogatories would either merely confirm the applicants' own evidence or contradict their case. The interrogatories concerning the alleged offer to sell the premises were not shown to be material to any issue on the pleadings, which concerned alleged non-disclosure in July 1981 and entry into the franchise agreement, and no pleaded issue referred to an offer. The motion was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The motion for further answers to the disputed interrogatories was dismissed.' 'The respondent withdrew its objections to interrogatories 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 13(a), 13(b) and 13(c).' 'The applicants no longer pursued interrogatories 1(d), 1(e) and 1(f) having regard to the provision of answers to 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c).']