Auburn Council v Austin Australia [2007] NSWSC 85

Auburn Council v Austin Australia [2007] NSWSC 85

The consent orders, although framed as granting leave to administer interrogatories and requiring service of answers, were properly construed as an exercise of power under Part 22 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, not under the repealed Supreme Court Rules or an inherent power modelled on them. Therefore the defendant's opportunity to object to particular interrogatories on rule 22.2 grounds passed no later than the making of those orders, and its later objections meant the interrogatories were not answered without evasion. Interrogatory 3A was also insufficiently answered because the words "at or prior to 30 July 2004" qualified the options under investigation, not the results. The...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Interrogatories / Notice of Motion for Orders That Defendant Answer Specified Interrogatories Without Evasion
Outcome
Plaintiff's motion granted; defendant ordered to answer the specified interrogatories without evasion and to pay the plaintiff's costs of both notices of motion; no costs order made against Hillcrest Litigation Services Limited.
Legal Topics
['interrogatories' 'objections to Interrogatories' 'consent Orders' 'costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['interrogatories' 'objections to Interrogatories' 'consent Orders' '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

Practice and Procedure Interrogatories / Notice of Motion for Orders That Defendant Answer Specified Interrogatories Without Evasion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, after a consent order granting leave to administer interrogatories and requiring answers, the defendant could object to answering interrogatories on grounds including that they were oppressive, frivolous, vexatious or did not relate to matters in issue.' 'Whether the defendant\'s answer to interrogatory 3A was insufficient because it construed the words "at or prior to 30 July 2004" as qualifying the results of the investigation rather than the options under investigation.' "Whether the defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs of the current notice of motion and the earlier notice of motion filed on 24 November 2006." 'Whether costs should be ordered against Hillcrest Litigation Services Limited.']

Ratio Decidendi

The consent orders, although framed as granting leave to administer interrogatories and requiring service of answers, were properly construed as an exercise of power under Part 22 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, not under the repealed Supreme Court Rules or an inherent power modelled on them. Therefore the defendant's opportunity to object to particular interrogatories on rule 22.2 grounds passed no later than the making of those orders, and its later objections meant the interrogatories were not answered without evasion. Interrogatory 3A was also insufficiently answered because the words "at or prior to 30 July 2004" qualified the options under investigation, not the results. The...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's motion granted; defendant ordered to answer the specified interrogatories without evasion and to pay the plaintiff's costs of both notices of motion; no costs order made against Hillcrest Litigation Services Limited.

Orders

  • ['Order in terms of prayer 2 of the notice of motion filed in Court today substituting for the date Tuesday 19 December 2006 the date Wednesday 20 December 2006.' "The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of that notice of motion." "The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the plaintiff's notice of...