Kent Heating Ltd v Peuren Agencies Pty Ltd & Ors [1987] FCA 204

Kent Heating Ltd v Peuren Agencies Pty Ltd & Ors [1987] FCA 204

Only those interrogatories which are relevant to the pleaded issues and expressed with necessary precision must be answered; others that are imprecise, oppressive, too wide, or not relevant to the issues as disclosed by the pleadings may be disallowed. The applicant failed with respect to the majority of the interrogatories, and is accordingly liable for the majority of the respondents' costs of the motion.

Parties
Applicant: Kent Heating Limited; First Respondent: Peuren Agencies Pty. Limited; Second Respondent: John Clarence Bridge; Third Respondent: Can-Fab Engineering Pty. Limited; Fourth Respondent: Hi-Tech Coating Systems Pty. Limited (formerly Durelink Engineering Pty. Limited)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 April 1987
Procedural Posture
Motion (interlocutory Application) / Ruling on Interrogatories and Costs
Outcome
The first and second respondents are ordered to make further answer, verified by affidavit in accordance with Order 16, rule 7 of the Federal Court Rules, to interrogatories numbered 22, 25, 37(a), 40, 58 and 59(f); otherwise, the motion is dismissed. The applicant must pay three-quarters of the costs of the first...
Legal Topics
Discovery and Interrogatories, Copyright Infringement, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Costs
Intellectual Property Trade Practices Civil Procedure Discovery and Interrogatories Copyright Infringement Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Costs

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kent Heating Limited

Applicant

Peuren Agencies Pty. Limited

First Respondent

John Clarence Bridge

Second Respondent

Can-Fab Engineering Pty. Limited

Third Respondent

Hi-Tech Coating Systems Pty. Limited (formerly Durelink Engineering Pty. Limited)

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion (interlocutory Application) / Ruling on Interrogatories and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interrogatories served by the applicant should be answered by the first and second respondents
  2. 2 Precision and admissibility of interrogatories under the Federal Court Rules
  3. 3 Relevance of interrogatories to issues pleaded (copyright, misleading conduct, damages)

Ratio Decidendi

Only those interrogatories which are relevant to the pleaded issues and expressed with necessary precision must be answered; others that are imprecise, oppressive, too wide, or not relevant to the issues as disclosed by the pleadings may be disallowed. The applicant failed with respect to the majority of the interrogatories, and is accordingly liable for the majority of the respondents' costs of the motion.

Court Disposition

The first and second respondents are ordered to make further answer, verified by affidavit in accordance with Order 16, rule 7 of the Federal Court Rules, to interrogatories numbered 22, 25, 37(a), 40, 58 and 59(f); otherwise, the motion is dismissed. The applicant must pay three-quarters of the costs of the first...

Orders

  • First and second respondents to make further answer verified by affidavit to interrogatories 22, 25, 37(a), 40, 58 and 59(f) within 14 days.
  • Otherwise, the motion is dismissed.