Yamazaki v Mustaca & ors. [1999] NSWSC 1083

Yamazaki v Mustaca & ors. [1999] NSWSC 1083

The Master erred in law by not applying the test of reasonable necessity for the fair disposal of the cause, as expounded by Cross J in Boyle v Downs. The evidentiary deficiencies faced by the plaintiff and the defendants' knowledge justified remitting the questions of interrogatories for reconsideration by the Master under the correct legal standard.

Parties
Plaintiff: Mikiko Yamazaki; Defendants: John Mustaca & ors.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Hearing of Interlocutory Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed with costs
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Discovery, Supreme Court Rules
Civil Procedure Interrogatories Discovery Supreme Court Rules

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

Mikiko Yamazaki

Plaintiff

John Mustaca & ors.

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment After Hearing of Interlocutory Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in refusing leave to administer interrogatories to the third, fourth and fifth defendants under Supreme Court Rules Part 24 Rule 5(2)
  2. 2 Proper construction and application of 'necessary' in SCR Part 24 Rule 5(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The Master erred in law by not applying the test of reasonable necessity for the fair disposal of the cause, as expounded by Cross J in Boyle v Downs. The evidentiary deficiencies faced by the plaintiff and the defendants' knowledge justified remitting the questions of interrogatories for reconsideration by the Master under the correct legal standard.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed with costs

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed with costs.
  • The interlocutory proceedings are remitted to the Master for consideration and decision on the appropriateness of administering interrogatories to the third, fourth and fifth defendants, with directions as to amendments and verification, and any further ancillary orders as appropriate.