'Qo? (NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION) IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No. VG 277 of 1985 GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN : SHIRLEY JOAN MORGAN and LEO JAMES MORGAN Applicants and A.G.C. (ADVANCES) LIMITED Respondents MINUTES OF ORDER COURT: Woodward J. DATE: 9 April 1987 PLACE: Melbourne THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The notice of motion dated 1 December be dismissed with costs. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No. VG 277 of 1985 GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN SHIRLEY JOAN MORGAN and LEO JAMES MORGAN Applicants and A.G.C. (ADVANCES) LIMITED Respondents COURT: Woodward J. DATE: 9 April 1987 PLACE: Melbourne EX~TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT In this matter the applicants are seeking further discovery of certain financial records of the respondent and further and better answers to interrogatories. So far as the discovery question is concerned, I am satisfied on the evidence before me that the additional banking records which have been sought would not bring about the better or more convenient trial of the action. With regard to what have been referred to as the 'posting' records, I am prepared to accept that there are in the interstices of the respondent's record-keeping system individual entries, whether held on computer or elsewhere, which may indicate certain payments being received by the respondent from the applicants. However, the respondent has pointed out by affidavit that those records are immediately transferred to the applicants' individual ledger cards and that the entries on the ledger cards have been made available to the applicants and the dates and amounts of payments received have been disclosed by way of answers to interrogatories. It is by no means clear whether any of those payments are actually in dispute in these proceedings, and if so whether the dispute relates to more than a very few of the payments that have been made. Certainly so far as the pleadings are concerned, there is only one reference to a dispute about a particular payment. Given these facts, it seems to me that in the exercise of my discretion it would be quite improper for me to put the respondent to the trouble and expense of trying to trace all the individual posting records of payments made by the applicants. Accordingly, that part of the notice of motion seeking further and better discovery of financial records will be dismissed. So far as the request for further and better answers to interrogatories is concerned, that has been contested by the respondent on the grounds that the interrogatories administrered by the applicant are vexatious and oppressive. It is relevant in these circumstances to record the fact that this is the second lot of interrogatories which have been administered. The first "set were answered in part and, as to the remainder, the respondent was able successfully to establish to the satisfaction of the Court that the unanswered interrogatories in that set were oppressive and vexatious. I find, having gone in detail through the 55 interrogatories, many of them with various sub-interrogatories, and the 10 attachments to the interrogatories, that the objection of the respondent to this set is properly taken. I have been able to identify only two or three of the 55 interrogatories which, arguably, the applicant could be entitled to have answered in whole or in part. It seems to me that, taking the interrogatories as a whole, the defects in them are so serious and so widespread that the only proper course for the Court to take is to uphold the objection to the whole set of interrogatories, and not to try to identify a few parts of two or three interrogatories which might arguably be free of objection. I have indicated, as counsel have gone through the interrogatories, the nature of my criticism of a number of then. I think it is true to say that many of them fall because they relate to matters which are not in issue between the parties. The statement of claim in this matter was filed on 9 December 1985. The defence was delivered early in 1986; it is over 12 months ago. There has already been litigation about the previous set of interrogatories, as I have indicated. Nevertheless, it is now put to me that there are a number of things that the statement of claim might have said, but has not, about the nature of the harassment alleged, which would provide a foundation for many of the interrogatories that have recently been administered. The simple fact of the matter is that the statement of claim does not allege, with one minor exception, that the respondents were harassing the applicants about moneys which were said to be owing, but which were not in fact owing. And yet the great bulk of the interrogatories are directed, in the minutest detail, much of which would have been objectionable in any event, to opening up the whole of the transaction between the parties and dealing with the nature of the original contract, the circumstances and amounts of payments that were made pursuant to that contract, and so on. It is because the interrogatories are thus related to matters which have not been pleaded, and which are not in issue between the parties, that the great bulk of them fall. However, as I have indicated in going through the interrogatories, there are a number of them, both those which are subject to that general criticism and also a number which are not, which are vexatious or oppressive simply because of their width and the way in which the interrogatories have been couched, or the details which they seek, going in many cases far beyond any issue between the parties. I do not think any useful purpose will be served by my running through each of the interrogatories in detail; there are a number of them which counsel has not sought to justify. They give the general impression, as I indicated in argument, that the draftsman of the interrogatories, instead of trying to identify the real issues between the parties and concentrate on interrogating about matters which the applicants need to have established before trial, has simply asked every conceivable question about the history of the transaction between the applicants and the respondent. That is not the way to go about interrogating. The particular interrogatories that I have identified in my own mind as being perhaps free of objection are parts of interrogatory 14, interrogatory 22 and parts of interrogatory 27. However, in my view, none of those interrogatories seek answers to questions which it will be important for the applicants to have answered before the litigation in these proceedings commences. I think it has to be borne in mind that it is for the applicants to establish, in a subjective way, what incidents occurred which make up the alleged claim of harassment. It would be for the respondent, if it seeks to do so, to try to establish that any actual harassment that did occur, occurred without its authority or instruction. That is not a defence which has been raised or foreshadowed in the material before me and, accordingly, any interrogatories directed to those sorts of issues are, in my view, unnecessary to pursue. Some of the interrogatories relate to documents which are available to both parties and not in dispute. Some of those interrogatories are clearly objectionable on their face, because they simply asked for verification of something which is quite apparent on the face of the document. On the other hand, some parts of interrogatory 14 are arguably proper, because they seek some clarification of particular entries on the documents. But my clear impression is that the interrogatories are far too wide and not really necessary for the launching of the applicants' case. Accordingly, this being the second time that the applicants have sought to administer a set of interrogatories, and also bearing in mind the current practice of the Court, as illustrated by the recent amendments to the rules, to discourage interrogation unless it is absolutely necessary, I do not propose to allow any further opportunity for the applicants to interrogate. Accordingly, the order of the Court is simply that the notice of motion dated 1 December be dismissed with costs. I certify that this and the five (5) preceding pages are a true and accurate copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of The Hon Mr Justice Woodward (3 Associate Dated: 9 April 1987