Woodfab Ltd. v. Coillte Teoranta [1997] IEHC 190; [2000] 1 IR 20; [1998] 1 ILRM 381 (19th December, 1997)

Woodfab Ltd. v. Coillte Teoranta [1997] IEHC 190; [2000] 1 IR 20; [1998] 1 ILRM 381 (19th December, 1997)

Leave to deliver Interrogatories is granted only where the questions are necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or for saving costs, and relate to issues raised in the pleadings. The court found that certain Interrogatories met these criteria and would save costs and time, but refused leave for questions that were hypothetical, unnecessary, related to opinions or policy, or required drawing inferences.

Citation
[1998] 1 ILRM 381
Parties
Plaintiff: Woodfab Limited; First Defendant: Coillte; Second Defendant: Medite of Europe Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Deliver Interrogatories / Interlocutory
Outcome
Leave granted in part to deliver Interrogatories; leave refused for specified questions.
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Abuse of Dominant Position, Discovery, Fair Disposal of Action
Competition Law Civil Procedure Interrogatories Abuse of Dominant Position Discovery Fair Disposal of Action

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Woodfab Limited

Plaintiff

Coillte

First Defendant

Medite of Europe Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Deliver Interrogatories / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to deliver Interrogatories to Coillte
  2. 2 Whether the Interrogatories are necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or for saving costs
  3. 3 Whether the Interrogatories are prolix, oppressive, vague, or imprecise

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to deliver Interrogatories is granted only where the questions are necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or for saving costs, and relate to issues raised in the pleadings. The court found that certain Interrogatories met these criteria and would save costs and time, but refused leave for questions that were hypothetical, unnecessary, related to opinions or policy, or required drawing inferences.

Court Disposition

Leave granted in part to deliver Interrogatories; leave refused for specified questions.

Orders

  • Plaintiff granted leave to deliver Interrogatories except for those listed in the schedule annexed to the judgment.
  • Defendant not required to answer Interrogatories relating to opinions, hypothetical facts, unnecessary questions, or those requiring inferences.