Capar v SPG Investments Pty Limited t/a Lidcombe Power Centre (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 1373

Capar v SPG Investments Pty Limited t/a Lidcombe Power Centre (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 1373

The Court refused the application for leave to administer interrogatories because it was not satisfied that any special reasons existed; no confusion in the documentation regarding Georgia Hall's position warranted such an order, and the late stage of application tended against exercising discretion.

Parties
Plaintiff: Gengiz Capar; First Defendant: SPG Investments Pty Limited t/a Lidcombe Power Centre; Second Defendant / First Cross Claimant: Business Protection Group Pty Limited; Third Defendant: The Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer; Third Cross Defendant: R.W. O'Brien and Associates Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Administer Interrogatories / Ruling on Procedural Application During Trial
Outcome
Application for leave to administer interrogatories refused
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Discretion to Dispense With Rules, Special Reasons for Order
Practice and Procedure Interrogatories Discretion to Dispense With Rules Special Reasons for Order

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gengiz Capar

Plaintiff

SPG Investments Pty Limited t/a Lidcombe Power Centre

First Defendant

Business Protection Group Pty Limited

Second Defendant / First Cross Claimant

The Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer

Third Defendant

R.W. O'Brien and Associates Pty Ltd

Third Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Administer Interrogatories / Ruling on Procedural Application During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should grant leave to administer interrogatories under r. 22.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether there are special reasons to justify dispensing with the requirement to accompany the application with proposed interrogatories
  3. 3 Whether confusion as to the identity and position of persons in tendered documents justifies the order

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused the application for leave to administer interrogatories because it was not satisfied that any special reasons existed; no confusion in the documentation regarding Georgia Hall's position warranted such an order, and the late stage of application tended against exercising discretion.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to administer interrogatories refused

Orders

  • The application for leave to administer interrogatories is refused.