McGarry v Southern NSW Local Health Network (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1110

McGarry v Southern NSW Local Health Network (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1110

Although the hospital report provided relevant information, interrogatories 5 and 6 were necessary to enable the plaintiff to know the primary facts associated with her operation. Those facts were within the knowledge of the second defendant and were germane to the plaintiff's claim, including as background to the claim against the second defendant and potentially in pursuing the claim against Stryker. The circumstances of the operation provided a special reason for interrogatories and the disputed interrogatories were no wider than necessary.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Filed 22 July 2013 Seeking Answers to Interrogatories
Outcome
The second defendant was ordered to answer interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 in MFI 2 within 28 days; no order was made as to costs of the plaintiff's notice of motion filed 22 July 2013.
Legal Topics
['application for Interrogatories' 'special Reason for Interrogatories' 'necessity of Interrogatories']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure'] ['application for Interrogatories' 'special Reason for Interrogatories' 'necessity of Interrogatories']

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 / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Filed 22 July 2013 Seeking Answers to Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the second defendant should be ordered to answer interrogatories 5 and 6 concerning how the reamer broach was removed from the plaintiff's femur." 'Whether the disputed interrogatories were necessary under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 21.1(4).' 'Whether the circumstances of the surgical operation provided a special reason for interrogatories to be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the hospital report provided relevant information, interrogatories 5 and 6 were necessary to enable the plaintiff to know the primary facts associated with her operation. Those facts were within the knowledge of the second defendant and were germane to the plaintiff's claim, including as background to the claim against the second defendant and potentially in pursuing the claim against Stryker. The circumstances of the operation provided a special reason for interrogatories and the disputed interrogatories were no wider than necessary.

Court Disposition

The second defendant was ordered to answer interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 in MFI 2 within 28 days; no order was made as to costs of the plaintiff's notice of motion filed 22 July 2013.

Orders

  • ['I order the second defendant to answer interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 in MFI 2 within 28 days hereof.' "I make no order as to the costs of the plaintiff's notice of motion filed 22 July 2013."]