Bryson v Casey & Anor [2000] NSWSC 1011

Bryson v Casey & Anor [2000] NSWSC 1011

Most disputed interrogatories were disallowed or required to be pursued as requests for particulars because they either did not relate to exposed issues on the pleadings, were in substance requests for particulars, were unnecessary or oppressive, or improperly intruded into discovery. The matter was directed toward separate determination of the jury issues and further requests for particulars.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Defamation Action in the Common Law Division, Defamation List / Interlocutory Notice of Motion Concerning Interrogatories and Requests for Particulars
Outcome
Plaintiff's motion for interrogatory answers was allowed only in limited respects; several proposed interrogatories were disallowed or left to be reformulated or pursued by requests for particulars, and procedural orders were made.
Legal Topics
['interrogatories' 'requests for Particulars' 'discovery' 'separate Determination' 'jury Determination Under S 7 A']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['interrogatories' 'requests for Particulars' 'discovery' 'separate Determination' 'jury Determination Under S 7 A']

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 Action in the Common Law Division, Defamation List / Interlocutory Notice of Motion Concerning Interrogatories and Requests for Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants should be required to answer proposed interrogatories concerning documents, contextual imputations, privilege or fair report, and matters complained of.' 'Whether some proposed interrogatories were instead requests for particulars or did not relate to exposed issues on the pleadings.' 'Whether separate determination should be ordered of issues joined for determination by the jury under s 7A.']

Ratio Decidendi

Most disputed interrogatories were disallowed or required to be pursued as requests for particulars because they either did not relate to exposed issues on the pleadings, were in substance requests for particulars, were unnecessary or oppressive, or improperly intruded into discovery. The matter was directed toward separate determination of the jury issues and further requests for particulars.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's motion for interrogatory answers was allowed only in limited respects; several proposed interrogatories were disallowed or left to be reformulated or pursued by requests for particulars, and procedural orders were made.

Orders

  • ['Orders made under Pt 31 r 2 for the separate determination of the issues joined between the parties by the Amended Statement of Claim filed 15 November 1996 and the Defence filed 13 May 1997, being issues for determination by the jury under s 7A.' 'Matter placed in the holding list.' 'Liberty to apply on three...