Karl Suleman Enterprizes Pty Limited (In Liquidation) v Suzy David & Ors [2007] NSWSC 401

Karl Suleman Enterprizes Pty Limited (In Liquidation) v Suzy David & Ors [2007] NSWSC 401

The Court held that leave should be granted only for those interrogatories that were sufficiently precise, relevant and not oppressive, and that were necessary in the interests of a fair trial having regard to cost and trial efficiency. The application was not rejected as premature merely because it was made by the Plaintiff before the First Defendant served her evidence, but many individual interrogatories were disallowed because they were vague, oppressive, repetitive, irrelevant, or assumed disputed duties.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Motion for Leave to Administer Interrogatories in Proceedings Alleging Breach of Retainer And/or Negligence by Solicitors / Interlocutory Motion
Outcome
Motion allowed in part; otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['interrogatories' 'necessity for Interrogatories' 'oppressive or Irrelevant Interrogatories' "solicitors' Duties" 'managed Investment Scheme']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations' 'professional Negligence'] ['interrogatories' 'necessity for Interrogatories' 'oppressive or Irrelevant Interrogatories' "solicitors' Duties" 'managed Investment Scheme']

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

Motion for Leave to Administer Interrogatories in Proceedings Alleging Breach of Retainer And/or Negligence by Solicitors / Interlocutory Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to administer proposed interrogatories to the First Defendant under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.' 'Whether the proposed interrogatories were necessary in the interests of a fair trial.' 'Whether objections based on prematurity, matters already admitted or otherwise provable, oppression, imprecision or irrelevance should defeat particular interrogatories.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that leave should be granted only for those interrogatories that were sufficiently precise, relevant and not oppressive, and that were necessary in the interests of a fair trial having regard to cost and trial efficiency. The application was not rejected as premature merely because it was made by the Plaintiff before the First Defendant served her evidence, but many individual interrogatories were disallowed because they were vague, oppressive, repetitive, irrelevant, or assumed disputed duties.

Court Disposition

Motion allowed in part; otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The Defendant Suzy David to provide within 28 days answers on oath to interrogatories numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38.1, 38.2, 38.4, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44.1, 49, 50, 51, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61 of the proposed interrogatories annexed to...