Bryson v Casey & Anor [2002] NSWSC 636

Bryson v Casey & Anor [2002] NSWSC 636

The plaintiff was not entitled to resist further answers merely because the interrogatories exceeded 30, because consent orders had permitted interrogatories exceeding that number and he later consented to provide verified answers after receiving them. However, the defendants still had to show that particular interrogatories were justified. Many of the plaintiff's answers were non-responsive or wrongly asserted that matters had already been answered, and many interrogatories were relevant to the pleaded substantial truth, contextual truth, damages and related issues; further and better answers were therefore ordered for those interrogatories. Other interrogatories, particularly some...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application by the Defendants for an Order That the Plaintiff Provide Further and Better Answers to Interrogatories
Outcome
Defendants' application allowed in part; the plaintiff was directed to provide further and better answers to specified interrogatories.
Legal Topics
['interrogatories' 'further and Better Answers' 'substantial Truth' 'contextual Truth' 'relevance and Oppression in Interrogatories']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['interrogatories' 'further and Better Answers' 'substantial Truth' 'contextual Truth' 'relevance and Oppression in 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

Defamation Proceedings / Interlocutory Application by the Defendants for an Order That the Plaintiff Provide Further and Better Answers to Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be required to provide further and better answers to interrogatories administered by the defendants on 8 October 2001.' 'Whether the number and content of the interrogatories made them oppressive notwithstanding consent orders permitting interrogatories exceeding 30 in number.' 'Whether particular objections based on irrelevance, oppression, vexation, embarrassment, repetition, inadmissibility or alleged prior answers should be upheld.' "Whether interrogatories concerning the plaintiff's criminal history, alleged conduct, relationships with young women, damages and related matters were relevant to pleaded truth and contextual truth issues."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was not entitled to resist further answers merely because the interrogatories exceeded 30, because consent orders had permitted interrogatories exceeding that number and he later consented to provide verified answers after receiving them. However, the defendants still had to show that particular interrogatories were justified. Many of the plaintiff's answers were non-responsive or wrongly asserted that matters had already been answered, and many interrogatories were relevant to the pleaded substantial truth, contextual truth, damages and related issues; further and better answers were therefore ordered for those interrogatories. Other interrogatories, particularly some...

Court Disposition

Defendants' application allowed in part; the plaintiff was directed to provide further and better answers to specified interrogatories.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff is directed to provide further and better answers to interrogatories 14(b); 18 – 21 inclusive; 22; 26; 28 – 34 inclusive; 67(c); 79(c)(viii); 94, 95, 96; 102(b); 107(d); 153(b); 154; 200; 207(b)(ii); 207(b)(iv); 213; 214(d)(ii); 217(c); 224; 234(b); 254(b); 247; 256(c); 260; 269(c); 272(a)(ii); 275;...