YAMAZAKI v MUSTACA & ORS [1999] NSWSC 864

YAMAZAKI v MUSTACA & ORS [1999] NSWSC 864

The plaintiff did not satisfy the requirement that an order for interrogatories was 'necessary' in the sense required by the rule, and thus the application must be dismissed; even if satisfied as to necessity, the discretionary power would not be exercised in the plaintiff's favour.

Parties
Plaintiff: Mikiko Yamazaki; First Defendant: John Mustaca; Second Defendant: Mary Mustaca; Third Defendant: Peter F Gibson; Fourth Defendant: Tina S Gibson; Fifth Defendant: PGTA Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Application Under Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 / Review of Registrar's Decision Regarding Interrogatories (interlocutory Motion)
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Application of Discretionary Power, Onus of Proof
Civil Procedure Interrogatories Application of Discretionary Power Onus of Proof

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mikiko Yamazaki

Plaintiff

John Mustaca

First Defendant

Mary Mustaca

Second Defendant

Peter F Gibson

Third Defendant

Tina S Gibson

Fourth Defendant

PGTA Pty Ltd

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 / Review of Registrar's Decision Regarding Interrogatories (interlocutory Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order for interrogatories was 'necessary' under Supreme Court Rules 1970, Pt 24 r 5
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff discharged the onus of proof to satisfy threshold and discretionary requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff did not satisfy the requirement that an order for interrogatories was 'necessary' in the sense required by the rule, and thus the application must be dismissed; even if satisfied as to necessity, the discretionary power would not be exercised in the plaintiff's favour.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff is to pay costs of the Notice of Motion
  • Exhibits may be returned