Margaret Leslie Marshall and Kim Neil Marshall v Michael Prescott [2012] NSWSC 515

Margaret Leslie Marshall and Kim Neil Marshall v Michael Prescott [2012] NSWSC 515

The court held that certain interrogatories were relevant and necessary to the proceedings and not objectionable, while others were impermissible as they were either oppressive, incapable of clear answer, or constituted cross-examination on adequacy of discovery. The necessity for interrogatories did not arise from the alleged loss of electronic documents, as asserted by the plaintiffs, but from the relevance of individual interrogatories to the issues in dispute.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure (interlocutory Application) / Interlocutory Decision on Notice of Motion for Interrogatories
Outcome
Interlocutory application granted in part.
Legal Topics
['interrogatories' 'discovery' 'oppression' 'relevance' 'court Orders']
['civil Procedure'] ['interrogatories' 'discovery' 'oppression' 'relevance' 'court Orders']

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

Practice and Procedure (interlocutory Application) / Interlocutory Decision on Notice of Motion for Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed interrogatories are relevant and necessary under Rule 22.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005' 'Whether any of the interrogatories are objectionable as oppressive, irrelevant, or otherwise impermissible']

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that certain interrogatories were relevant and necessary to the proceedings and not objectionable, while others were impermissible as they were either oppressive, incapable of clear answer, or constituted cross-examination on adequacy of discovery. The necessity for interrogatories did not arise from the alleged loss of electronic documents, as asserted by the plaintiffs, but from the relevance of individual interrogatories to the issues in dispute.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application granted in part.

Orders

  • ["The defendant, within twenty one (21) days, is to provide verified answers to those interrogatories numbered (1), (2), (3), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (19), (20), (21), (22), (23), (24), (25), (27), (28) and (30) in the draft form of interrogatories marked 'A' and annexed to the notice of motion filed...