Watson & Anor. v. McLernon & 26 Ors.Watson v. McLernon & 27 Ors. [2000] NSWSC 19

Watson & Anor. v. McLernon & 26 Ors.Watson v. McLernon & 27 Ors. [2000] NSWSC 19

The interrogatories sought by the plaintiffs were not reasonably necessary to the determination of the issues, given their peripheral relevance, the existing affidavit evidence, and their oppressive nature. The Court applied the principle that necessity under Pt.24 r.5(2) does not mean absolute necessity but must be reasonable in the circumstances. The application to administer interrogatories 6, 7, 8, and 9 was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Equity / Interlocutory Application Regarding Interrogatories
Outcome
Application refused in relation to interrogatories 6, 7, 8, and 9; orders otherwise made as per short minutes initialed and dated by the Judge.
Legal Topics
['legal Professional Privilege' 'improper Purpose' 'interrogatories' 'state of Mind' 'burden of Proof']
['evidence' 'practice and Procedure'] ['legal Professional Privilege' 'improper Purpose' 'interrogatories' 'state of Mind' 'burden of Proof']

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

Equity / Interlocutory Application Regarding Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether interrogatories relating to defendants' state of mind regarding privileged documents should be administered" 'Degree of proof required for improper purpose to displace legal professional privilege']

Ratio Decidendi

The interrogatories sought by the plaintiffs were not reasonably necessary to the determination of the issues, given their peripheral relevance, the existing affidavit evidence, and their oppressive nature. The Court applied the principle that necessity under Pt.24 r.5(2) does not mean absolute necessity but must be reasonable in the circumstances. The application to administer interrogatories 6, 7, 8, and 9 was refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused in relation to interrogatories 6, 7, 8, and 9; orders otherwise made as per short minutes initialed and dated by the Judge.

Orders

  • ['Interrogatories 6, 7, 8, and 9 are not to be administered or answered.' 'In matter No.3358 of 1999, Margaret Calvert to answer interrogatories 15, 16, 17, and 18 on or before 11 February 2000.' 'Costs of today to be costs in the proceedings.']