El-Mouelhy v Reid [2017] NSWSC 623

El-Mouelhy v Reid [2017] NSWSC 623

Only interrogatories 42, 43 and 44 were necessary and appropriate because they concerned the defendant's training, study and experience relevant to the placement of polypropylene meshes and related training. The remaining disputed interrogatories were not shown to be necessary or appropriate because the information could be obtained or proved through other forensic procedures, the plaintiff already had evidence and notice of factual disputes, some questions were too broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, premature, potentially irrelevant, or not apt to establish the matters sought.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Claim for Damages for Negligence Arising From Medical Procedures; Procedural Motion for Verified Interrogatories / Notice of Motion Filed on 3 February 2017 Seeking an Order for Verified Interrogatories
Outcome
Motion granted in part; defendant ordered to answer interrogatories 42, 43 and 44 and costs of the motion ordered to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['interrogatories' 'necessity of Interrogatories' 'forensic Procedures' 'costs in the Cause']
['civil Procedure' 'medical Negligence'] ['interrogatories' 'necessity of Interrogatories' 'forensic Procedures' 'costs in the Cause']

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

Claim for Damages for Negligence Arising From Medical Procedures; Procedural Motion for Verified Interrogatories / Notice of Motion Filed on 3 February 2017 Seeking an Order for Verified Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant should be ordered under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 22.1 to answer the plaintiff's proposed interrogatories." 'Whether the proposed interrogatories were necessary at the time the order was sought.' 'Whether particular interrogatories were inappropriate because other forensic procedures were available, because they were too broad, vague, oppressive, premature, or not apt to establish the matters sought.']

Ratio Decidendi

Only interrogatories 42, 43 and 44 were necessary and appropriate because they concerned the defendant's training, study and experience relevant to the placement of polypropylene meshes and related training. The remaining disputed interrogatories were not shown to be necessary or appropriate because the information could be obtained or proved through other forensic procedures, the plaintiff already had evidence and notice of factual disputes, some questions were too broad, vague, ambiguous, oppressive, premature, potentially irrelevant, or not apt to establish the matters sought.

Court Disposition

Motion granted in part; defendant ordered to answer interrogatories 42, 43 and 44 and costs of the motion ordered to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ['Order the defendant, pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 22.1, to answer interrogatories numbered 42, 43, and 44 in the draft annexed to the notice of motion filed on 3 February 2017 and to verify such answers in an affidavit.' 'Order that the costs of the motion be costs in the cause.']