Nella, J.B. & Ors v Kingia Pty Ltd & Ors [1987] FCA 519

Nella, J.B. & Ors v Kingia Pty Ltd & Ors [1987] FCA 519

The determination of whether objections to interrogatories are sustained depends on the nature and scope of each interrogatory and established grounds such as irrelevance, vexation, oppression, and privilege. The Court retains discretion in ordering further answers even if objection is not made out, and the scope of interrogatories should be narrowly confined to the relevant matters. Where answers were insufficient, incomplete, or unduly evasive, orders compelling fuller answers were made; where interrogatories were found oppressive, vexatious, or impermissibly roving, objections were upheld.

Parties
Applicant: John Baptist Nella; Applicant: Clifford Sidney Brown; Applicant: Barbara Sybil Brown; Applicant: Ian William Brown; First Respondent / Cross Claimant: Kingia Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Ian David Asphar; Second Respondent: Peter Anthony McComish; Second Respondent: Robert William Waters; Third Respondent / Cross Respondent: Hilldodd Pty Ltd; Fourth Respondent: Maxwell Dodd; Fifth Respondent: Maurice Howard Hill; Sixth Respondent: Stanley Ronald Layton
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 1987
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application (discovery/interrogatories)
Outcome
Interlocutory applications by both sides allowed in part and dismissed in part; certain further answers ordered, other objections upheld.
Legal Topics
Discovery and Interrogatories, Objections to Interrogatories, Sale of Business, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Fraud, Negligence, Collateral Contract
Civil Procedure Contract Law Misrepresentation Discovery and Interrogatories Objections to Interrogatories Sale of Business Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Fraud +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Baptist Nella

Applicant

Clifford Sidney Brown

Applicant

Barbara Sybil Brown

Applicant

Ian William Brown

Applicant

Kingia Pty Ltd

First Respondent / Cross Claimant

Ian David Asphar

Second Respondent

Peter Anthony McComish

Second Respondent

Robert William Waters

Second Respondent

Hilldodd Pty Ltd

Third Respondent / Cross Respondent

Maxwell Dodd

Fourth Respondent

Maurice Howard Hill

Fifth Respondent

Stanley Ronald Layton

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application (discovery/interrogatories)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What are the permissible grounds for objecting to interrogatories under Federal Court Rules 0.16 r.6?
  2. 2 Are certain interrogatories oppressive, vexatious, or irrelevant?
  3. 3 Should orders be made compelling additional or clarified answers to specific interrogatories?

Ratio Decidendi

The determination of whether objections to interrogatories are sustained depends on the nature and scope of each interrogatory and established grounds such as irrelevance, vexation, oppression, and privilege. The Court retains discretion in ordering further answers even if objection is not made out, and the scope of interrogatories should be narrowly confined to the relevant matters. Where answers were insufficient, incomplete, or unduly evasive, orders compelling fuller answers were made; where interrogatories were found oppressive, vexatious, or impermissibly roving, objections were upheld.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory applications by both sides allowed in part and dismissed in part; certain further answers ordered, other objections upheld.

Orders

  • Applicants' motion: Orders made requiring further and sufficient answers to specified interrogatories by respondents Waters, McComish, Dodd, and Layton (specified by number and topic); other claims dismissed.
  • First and Second Respondents' motion: Orders made requiring Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Respondents to file and deliver specified further answers; other claims dismissed.