McCallum v Reynolds [2016] NSWSC 366

McCallum v Reynolds [2016] NSWSC 366

The application for interrogatories was dismissed because the material available to the defendants already laid a reasonable foundation for qualifying an expert on intoxication, and interrogatories were not necessary nor were special reasons demonstrated as required by Rule 22.1. The professional responsibilities of lawyers do not require certitude, only a reasonably arguable belief based on available material.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Administer Interrogatories
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed; costs awarded to the plaintiff against the first and second defendants in accordance with Rule 42.7.
Legal Topics
['interrogatories' 'contributory Negligence' 'intoxication' 'necessity and Special Reasons']
['civil Procedure' 'personal Injury'] ['interrogatories' 'contributory Negligence' 'intoxication' 'necessity and Special Reasons']

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

Personal Injury / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Administer Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether interrogatories should be administered prior to the filing of a defence in a personal injury claim involving alleged intoxication of the plaintiff' "Whether the defendants have established 'special reasons' and 'necessity' as required by Rule 22.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)"]

Ratio Decidendi

The application for interrogatories was dismissed because the material available to the defendants already laid a reasonable foundation for qualifying an expert on intoxication, and interrogatories were not necessary nor were special reasons demonstrated as required by Rule 22.1. The professional responsibilities of lawyers do not require certitude, only a reasonably arguable belief based on available material.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed; costs awarded to the plaintiff against the first and second defendants in accordance with Rule 42.7.

Orders

  • ['I dismiss the notice of motion filed on 5 February 2016.' 'The first and second defendants are to pay the plaintiffs costs of the application in accordance with Rule 42.7.']