Borden Australia Pty Ltd v Monsanto Australia Ltd [1983] FCA 425

i

¥

AND:

EX TEMPORE PEASONS

Ne Ne

iD

Neo. Gll4 of 1922 BORDEN AUSTPAL

+m Lib

D

re

fe te baal cr

Q *

are that the the purchase of

pe ct >) b fom fa q Sa ian Ha

rt i) c i. 5s b] cr 1b

nN o on 'S ps) io) jae Do rs) ct

7H

I heard the hy the for leavya to spondant on 15 April and gave an ex tempore judqment mongst other things:- turning to the articul in cvatories in I should say thar it is often necessary when

with applications for leave to interrogate e disputed to decide questions of vslevance of errogatories. rt is, of course, always i t to decide' aquestions of relevance at this e oceeding. Not infreauently matters that t 9 be relevant at a stage ich as this s at the wai =6Chearing, as proceeds, to be relevant, and vice versa. Accordingly, any views ym at en the muestion of relevance that cause I think I have to in ord ose of cation; but they are, of cours niy oon fanding of the case as it is resent in ¥ event, prima facie vie ecessi st . respondent objected to answering gatories the subject of that earlier application on two principal grounds: first, on che ground that certain interrogatories were said =o be oppressive; on To stumma 5S and 6 of ny jedgment of 15 April in thease terms:-

"The respondent objects te ans qatory on the ground that it does not ¥ ter in question between the parties in t es only to mackets outside Australia whic n& asserts are not relevant to the iss roceeding having rd to os. 4E of the applicant asserts the interrogatory do i to relevant sues e notwithstanding the i 1s of s. 4E,

is tion is practised in ti fo orice by

t in its sales of phe to the applicant

yet the pondent lis to overseas

lower worices so that the aoplicant is

for the phenol purchased by it than are

S purchasers, this is a matter which is

ee £

said by t issu te 7 comp marks

to t

Bert D@imnrwWsa BOD dey oO ee me) ty