Sherry v Australasian Conference Association Ltd & Ors [2001] NSWSC 814

Sherry v Australasian Conference Association Ltd & Ors [2001] NSWSC 814

Interrogatories 3 and 9 sought information potentially relevant to the alleged omissions in post-operative care and to possible explanations for those omissions, and the evidence that about 5 hours' work was required did not make answering them oppressive. The plaintiff did not press the CCU component, so the first defendant was ordered to answer those interrogatories as to the ICU only. The subpoena sought documents as an alternative means to obtain the same information and, given the interrogatory answers, was stayed until further order. The burden evidence for Interrogatories 26 and 27 was unclear, so a further affidavit was required before any final ruling on those interrogatories.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 September 2001
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Proceedings / Notices of Motion Concerning Interrogatories and Subpoena
Outcome
Plaintiff's motion to compel answers to interrogatories succeeded in part; first defendant's application to halt action on the subpoena succeeded; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['interrogatories' 'subpoena' 'discovery' 'relevance' 'oppression' 'confidentiality' 'hospital Care']
['civil Procedure' 'professional Negligence' 'medical Negligence'] ['interrogatories' 'subpoena' 'discovery' 'relevance' 'oppression' 'confidentiality' 'hospital Care']

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

Professional Negligence Proceedings / Notices of Motion Concerning Interrogatories and Subpoena

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first defendant should be compelled to answer interrogatories about ICU patient load and ventilated patients during the relevant post-operative period.' 'Whether interrogatories seeking information about prior off-pump cardiac surgery cases and left anterior descending artery repairs should be answered having regard to the burden of obtaining the information.' "Whether action on the plaintiff's subpoena to the first defendant should be stayed as oppressive or unnecessary if interrogatory answers provide the information sought." 'Whether objections based on relevance, fishing, oppression and confidentiality should prevent the plaintiff obtaining the requested information.']

Ratio Decidendi

Interrogatories 3 and 9 sought information potentially relevant to the alleged omissions in post-operative care and to possible explanations for those omissions, and the evidence that about 5 hours' work was required did not make answering them oppressive. The plaintiff did not press the CCU component, so the first defendant was ordered to answer those interrogatories as to the ICU only. The subpoena sought documents as an alternative means to obtain the same information and, given the interrogatory answers, was stayed until further order. The burden evidence for Interrogatories 26 and 27 was unclear, so a further affidavit was required before any final ruling on those interrogatories.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's motion to compel answers to interrogatories succeeded in part; first defendant's application to halt action on the subpoena succeeded; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The first defendant to answer Interrogatories 3 and 9 of the plaintiff\'s interrogatories within 28 days from today\'s date, but not as to the "CCU".' 'The first defendant to file and serve a further affidavit within 28 days.' 'Stay action of the subpoena issued by the plaintiff to the first defendant dated 5 July...