Keen Mar Corporation Pty Ltdv Labrador Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd [1986] FCA 577

Keen Mar Corporation Pty Ltdv Labrador Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd [1986] FCA 577

The respondents' answers to the interrogatories were not compliant with the Federal Court Rules because they were argumentative, repetitive, raised improper objections, and did not specifically or properly deal with the substance of the interrogatories as required. The court has discretion to require further answers where such answers have not been properly provided, and, exercising that discretion, further and better answers to interrogatories 43(c), 45(j), and 126 are ordered.

Parties
Applicant: Keen Mar Corporation Pty. Ltd.; First Respondent / Cross Claimant: Labrador Park Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd.; Second Respondent: Hersfield Developments Corporation Pty. Ltd.; Second Cross Respondent: Alan Keen; Third Cross Respondent: Trudy Keen; Applicant / First Cross Respondent / Cross Respondent: Trevor McDougall Coomber; Applicant / Cross Respondent: Gregory Desmond Keily; Applicant / Cross Respondent: Cameron Gregory Gooden; Applicant / Cross Respondent: Colin James Palleson; Applicant / Cross Respondent: Betty Ruth Palleson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 December 1986
Procedural Posture
Civil/interlocutory / Judgment on Notice of Motion for Further and Better Answers to Interrogatories
Outcome
Interlocutory orders made; partial grant of application for further answers to interrogatories.
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Discovery, Pleadings
Civil Procedure Interrogatories Discovery Pleadings

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keen Mar Corporation Pty. Ltd.

Applicant

Labrador Park Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd.

First Respondent / Cross Claimant

Hersfield Developments Corporation Pty. Ltd.

Second Respondent

Alan Keen

Second Cross Respondent

Trudy Keen

Third Cross Respondent

Trevor McDougall Coomber

Applicant / First Cross Respondent / Cross Respondent

Gregory Desmond Keily

Applicant / Cross Respondent

Cameron Gregory Gooden

Applicant / Cross Respondent

Colin James Palleson

Applicant / Cross Respondent

Betty Ruth Palleson

Applicant / Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil/interlocutory / Judgment on Notice of Motion for Further and Better Answers to Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' answers to interrogatories comply with Order 16, rule 6 of the Federal Court Rules.
  2. 2 Whether further and better answers to certain interrogatories should be ordered.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents' answers to the interrogatories were not compliant with the Federal Court Rules because they were argumentative, repetitive, raised improper objections, and did not specifically or properly deal with the substance of the interrogatories as required. The court has discretion to require further answers where such answers have not been properly provided, and, exercising that discretion, further and better answers to interrogatories 43(c), 45(j), and 126 are ordered.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders made; partial grant of application for further answers to interrogatories.

Orders

  • Respondents in G145 of 1984 to make further and better answers to interrogatories 43(c), 45(j), and 126 by 10 December 1986.
  • The costs of and incidental to the notice of motion in G145 of 1984 be the applicants' costs in the proceedings.