Somerville, Hugh Ross v Australian Securities Commission & Ors ANZ Executors & Trustee Co Ltd v Australian Securities Commission & Ors Day Neilson Jenkins & Johns v Australian Securities Commission & Ors [1995] FCA 854

Somerville, Hugh Ross v Australian Securities Commission & Ors ANZ Executors & Trustee Co Ltd v Australian Securities Commission & Ors Day Neilson Jenkins & Johns v Australian Securities Commission & Ors [1995] FCA 854

The interrogatories required discovery of information far broader than that defined by the pleadings, rendering them oppressive. The Federal Court Rules require that interrogatories be specific and bounded by the precise issues between parties. Where pleadings specify alleged considerations, interrogatories can address those, but not an unlimited catalogue of all matters taken into account, purpose, or selection. The respondents' objections were justified on the grounds articulated. There is no cause for the Court to order further or better answers to the interrogatories in question.

Parties
Applicant: Hugh Ross Somerville; Applicant: ANZ Executors and Trustee Company Ltd; Applicant: Day Neilson Jenkins & Johns; Respondents: Australian Securities Commission & Others (including P Chapman and A Wilson)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 1995
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications Regarding Interrogatories / Motions for Further and Better Answers to Interrogatories
Outcome
Motions for further and better answers to interrogatories refused with costs.
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Oppressive Interrogatories, Privilege, Opportunity to Be Heard
Civil Procedure Interrogatories Oppressive Interrogatories Privilege Opportunity to Be Heard

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hugh Ross Somerville

Applicant

ANZ Executors and Trustee Company Ltd

Applicant

Day Neilson Jenkins & Johns

Applicant

Australian Securities Commission & Others (including P Chapman and A Wilson)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Applications Regarding Interrogatories / Motions for Further and Better Answers to Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents should be compelled to provide further and better answers to certain interrogatories
  2. 2 Whether the interrogatories were oppressive or otherwise objectionable under Federal Court Rules
  3. 3 Whether applicants were sufficiently afforded an opportunity to be heard

Ratio Decidendi

The interrogatories required discovery of information far broader than that defined by the pleadings, rendering them oppressive. The Federal Court Rules require that interrogatories be specific and bounded by the precise issues between parties. Where pleadings specify alleged considerations, interrogatories can address those, but not an unlimited catalogue of all matters taken into account, purpose, or selection. The respondents' objections were justified on the grounds articulated. There is no cause for the Court to order further or better answers to the interrogatories in question.

Court Disposition

Motions for further and better answers to interrogatories refused with costs.

Orders

  • That the motion on notice dated 25 May 1995 be refused.
  • That the applicant pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the said motion, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.