Khanna v Woolworths Group Limited (ABN: 88 000 0146 75) [2021] NSWDC 427

Khanna v Woolworths Group Limited (ABN: 88 000 0146 75) [2021] NSWDC 427

The plaintiff's motion was dismissed because, in a personal injuries proceeding, he had not established special reasons or necessity for interrogatories at the late stage when the trial evidence had closed. The case was not unusual or unduly complex, the proposed interrogatories were largely directed to matters already pursued by notices to produce and a refused subpoena application, many sought documents or irrelevant matters rather than proper interrogatories, and some were directed to non-parties whom the court could not order to answer under UCPR r 22.1(1). Granting the orders would cause extensive delay and would not be consistent with the overriding purpose in s 56 of the Civil...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injuries Negligence Claim / Notice of Motion by the Plaintiff Filed 7 July 2021 Seeking Leave to Administer Interrogatories After the Final Hearing Evidence Had Closed and Before Submissions
Outcome
The plaintiff's Notice of Motion was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['interrogatories' 'special Reasons in Personal Injuries Proceedings' 'self Represented Litigant' 'discovery and Production of Documents' 'delay and Overriding Purpose' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'personal Injury' 'negligence'] ['interrogatories' 'special Reasons in Personal Injuries Proceedings' 'self Represented Litigant' 'discovery and Production of Documents' 'delay and Overriding Purpose' 'costs']

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

Civil Personal Injuries Negligence Claim / Notice of Motion by the Plaintiff Filed 7 July 2021 Seeking Leave to Administer Interrogatories After the Final Hearing Evidence Had Closed and Before Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether special reasons existed under UCPR r 22.1(3) to justify interrogatories in a personal injuries claim.' 'Whether the proposed interrogatories were necessary at the time of the application under UCPR r 22.1(4).' 'Whether interrogatories could be ordered against non-parties including Ms Emily Gibson and Dr Frank Machart.' 'Whether the proposed interrogatories were inappropriate because they sought documents, irrelevant information, matters of law, or matters not pleaded.' 'Whether granting leave after the evidence had closed would cause delay contrary to the overriding purpose in s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether the defendant should receive costs of the dismissed Notice of Motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's motion was dismissed because, in a personal injuries proceeding, he had not established special reasons or necessity for interrogatories at the late stage when the trial evidence had closed. The case was not unusual or unduly complex, the proposed interrogatories were largely directed to matters already pursued by notices to produce and a refused subpoena application, many sought documents or irrelevant matters rather than proper interrogatories, and some were directed to non-parties whom the court could not order to answer under UCPR r 22.1(1). Granting the orders would cause extensive delay and would not be consistent with the overriding purpose in s 56 of the Civil...

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's Notice of Motion was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion filed by the plaintiff on 7 July 2021 is dismissed.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the Notice of Motion filed on 7 July 2021 as agreed or assessed."]