Mullins Investments Pty Ltd v Airflite Pty Ltd & Anor [1988] FCA 297

Mullins Investments Pty Ltd v Airflite Pty Ltd & Anor [1988] FCA 297

The first respondent was refused leave because the proposed interrogatories either did not relate to matters in issue on the pleadings, concerned matters not pleaded, bore only incidentally on possible cross-examination, sought confirmation of an alleged admission that could be proved by evidence, or would not expedite the trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 July 1988
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Interrogate / Reasons for Judgment on the First Respondent's Application for Leave to Interrogate in Terms of Draft Interrogatories Filed 20 May 1988
Outcome
The first respondent was refused leave to interrogate.
Legal Topics
['leave to Interrogate' 'interrogatories' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'breach of Contract' 'negligent Misstatement' 'damages']
['civil Procedure' 'trade Practices' 'contract' 'equity' 'negligence'] ['leave to Interrogate' 'interrogatories' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'breach of Contract' 'negligent Misstatement' 'damages']

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

Application for Leave to Interrogate / Reasons for Judgment on the First Respondent's Application for Leave to Interrogate in Terms of Draft Interrogatories Filed 20 May 1988

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first respondent should be granted leave to interrogate in terms of its draft interrogatories filed 20 May 1988.' 'Whether the proposed interrogatories related to questions in issue on the pleadings or would expedite the trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first respondent was refused leave because the proposed interrogatories either did not relate to matters in issue on the pleadings, concerned matters not pleaded, bore only incidentally on possible cross-examination, sought confirmation of an alleged admission that could be proved by evidence, or would not expedite the trial.

Court Disposition

The first respondent was refused leave to interrogate.

Orders

  • ['The first respondent is refused leave to interrogate in terms of its draft interrogatories filed 20 May 1988.']