Hughes, K.J. v. Western Australian Cricket Association & Ors [1986] FCA 269

Hughes, K.J. v. Western Australian Cricket Association & Ors [1986] FCA 269

The interrogatories, even after reduction in number, remain oppressive and many are objectionable in form or substance; it would be unjust and unreasonable to require the respondents to answer them at this stage, especially given availability of cross-examination and respondents' assurances to produce all deponents for cross-examination.

Parties
Applicant: Kimberley John Hughes; First Respondent: Western Australian Cricket Association (Inc.) and others; Second Respondent: Mt. Lawley District Cricket Club (Inc.) and others; Third Respondent: Leslie Annison (sued on behalf of himself and all other members of the Scarborough Cricket Club) and others; Fourth Respondent: Kevin Morris Taylforth (sued on behalf of himself and all other members of the Cricket Council of Western Australia Cricket Association (Inc.))
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 1986
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure / Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory – Application Regarding Interrogatories
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Oppressiveness, Federal Court Rules, Trade Practices Act
Civil Procedure Interrogatories Oppressiveness Federal Court Rules Trade Practices Act

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kimberley John Hughes

Applicant

Western Australian Cricket Association (Inc.) and others

First Respondent

Mt. Lawley District Cricket Club (Inc.) and others

Second Respondent

Leslie Annison (sued on behalf of himself and all other members of the Scarborough Cricket Club) and others

Third Respondent

Kevin Morris Taylforth (sued on behalf of himself and all other members of the Cricket Council of Western Australia Cricket Association (Inc.))

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure / Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory – Application Regarding Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interrogatories administered out of time by the applicant should be answered by the respondents
  2. 2 Whether the interrogatories are oppressive or objectionable
  3. 3 Whether refusal to answer interrogatories would lead to injustice to the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The interrogatories, even after reduction in number, remain oppressive and many are objectionable in form or substance; it would be unjust and unreasonable to require the respondents to answer them at this stage, especially given availability of cross-examination and respondents' assurances to produce all deponents for cross-examination.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The claim in paragraph 3 of the applicant's minute of proposed directions filed 4 July 1986 is dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the claim.