Donald v Kent & Ors [2002] NSWSC 690

The second defendant is ordered to answer the plaintiff's notice to answer the amended interrogatories by 30 August 2002, with liberty to apply for an extension if compliance is not practicable. Each party will bear its own costs of the notice of motion.

Parties: Plaintiff: Catherine Clare Donald; First Defendant: Dr Chester Kent; Second Defendant: Northern Sydney Area Health Service; Third Defendant: Dr Carol Pollock
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 02 August 2002
Procedural Posture: Professional Negligence / Interlocutory (application for Answers to Interrogatories and Costs)
Outcome: Orders made as sought for interrogatories; no order as to costs (each party bears own costs).
Legal Topics: Interrogatories, Costs

Civil Procedure Interrogatories 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 Party arguments 2

Parties

Catherine Clare Donald

Plaintiff

Dr Chester Kent

First Defendant

Northern Sydney Area Health Service

Second Defendant

Dr Carol Pollock

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence / Interlocutory (application for Answers to Interrogatories and Costs)

Legal Issues

1 Whether the second defendant should be ordered to answer amended interrogatories by a specified date
2 Who should bear the costs of the plaintiff's notice of motion for answers to interrogatories

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Orders made as sought for interrogatories; no order as to costs (each party bears own costs).

Orders

The second defendant is to answer the plaintiff's notice to answer the amended interrogatories by 30 August 2002.
The parties have liberty to apply on one day's notice.