Crawley v Vero Insurance Ltd (No 4) [2012] NSWSC 1582

Crawley v Vero Insurance Ltd (No 4) [2012] NSWSC 1582

The proposed interrogatories were not necessary because, on the current pleadings, their connection to the alleged 2003 determination was only a mere possibility and the grounds of review to which they could be directed in relation to the 16 May 2012 resolution had not been specifically pleaded. The interrogatories therefore were not reasonably required for the resolution of the issues raised by the pleadings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application to Administer Interrogatories / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Filed 16 August 2012; Remaining Prayer for Relief Heard on 5 December 2012
Outcome
Application to administer interrogatories dismissed.
Legal Topics
['interrogatories' 'necessity Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 R 22.1' 'resolution Under Legal Profession Act 2004 S 409' 'pleadings and Joinder of Issue' 'judicial Review Grounds']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'legal Profession' 'insurance'] ['interrogatories' 'necessity Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 R 22.1' 'resolution Under Legal Profession Act 2004 S 409' 'pleadings and Joinder of Issue' 'judicial Review Grounds']

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

Interlocutory Application to Administer Interrogatories / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Filed 16 August 2012; Remaining Prayer for Relief Heard on 5 December 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether administration of the proposed interrogatories was necessary or reasonably required for the resolution of the issues raised by the pleadings.' 'Whether the proposed interrogatories were sufficiently connected to the pleaded issue of whether LawCover had made a determination in 2003 under s 409 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 or its statutory predecessor, s 44 of the Legal Profession Act 1987.' "Whether the legal validity or efficacy of LawCover's 16 May 2012 resolution was in issue on the pleadings so as to justify interrogatories into the facts, circumstances, legal advice and Board discussions leading to the resolution."]

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed interrogatories were not necessary because, on the current pleadings, their connection to the alleged 2003 determination was only a mere possibility and the grounds of review to which they could be directed in relation to the 16 May 2012 resolution had not been specifically pleaded. The interrogatories therefore were not reasonably required for the resolution of the issues raised by the pleadings.

Court Disposition

Application to administer interrogatories dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The balance of the Plaintiff's notice of motion filed 16 August 2012 be dismissed."]