25% IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION No. G 85 of 1982 BETWEEN : KENT HEATING LIMITED Applicant AND: PEUREN AGENCIES Pry. LIMITED First respondent JOHN CLARENCE BRIDGE Second respondent CAN-FAB ENGINEERING PTY. LIMITED Third respondent HI-TECH COATING SYSTMES PLY. LIMITED (formerly Durelink Engineering Pty. Limited) Fourth respondent MINUTE OF ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER : Neaves J. ae DATE OF ORDER ° : 3 April 1987 1 FEDERAL AUSTRALIRT O8 WHERE MADE : Canberra THE COURT ORDERS THAT: lL. The first and second respondents within 14 days from the date of this order make further answer, verified by affidavit in accordance with Order 16, rule 7 of the Federal Court Rules, to the interrogatories set out in the notice dated 27 February 1986 served by the applicant on the first and second respondents and numbered 22, 25, 37(a), 40, 58 and 59(f). 2. Otherwise, the motion notice of which was given on 14 August 1986 be dismissed. 3. The applicant pay three-quarters of the costs of the first and second respondents of the motion. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ) } ) ) Wo. G 85 of 1982 DISTRICT REGISTRY } ) ) GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN : KENT HEATING LIMITED Applicant AND: PEUREN AGENCIES PTY. LIMITED First respondent JOHN CLARENCE BRIDGE Second respondent CAN-FAB ENGINEERING PTY. LIMITED Third respondent HI-TECH COATING SYSTMES PIrY. LIMITED (formerly Durelink Engineering Pty. Limited) Fourth respondent CORAM: Neaves d. DATE: 3 April 1987 . REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Kent Heating Limited ("the applicant") has applied to the Court by motion on notice that Peuren Agencies Pty. Limited ("the first respondent") and John Clarence Bridge ("the second respondent") be ordered to make further answer, verified by affidavit in accordance with 0.16, r.7 of the Federal Court Rules, to a number of interrogatories set out in a notice dated 27 February 1986. The notice to answer interrogatories was given in proceedings in which the applicant seeks relief against the first and second respondents and against Can-Fab Engineering Pty. Limited ("the third respondent") and Hi-tech Coating Systems Pty. Limited, formerly Durelink Engineering Pty. Limited ("the fourth respondent"). According to its amended application, filed herein on 11 September 1985, the applicant claims: "(a) An injunction restraining the First, Third and Fourth Respondents by their directors, officers, servants, contractors or agents, and the Second Respondent, from manufacturing, distributing, advertising, selling, or offering for sale or otherwise dealing with the heaters manufactured by them and marketed under the name 'Erik 2000' or any other heater similar to or substantially similar to the Tile Fire or any other heaters manufactured by the Applicant. (b) Delivery up to the Applicant of all heaters, dyes, jigs, components, brochures, advertising materials and drawings infringing Applicant's copyright; (c) (i) Damages as in an action for conversion pursuant to Section vw 116 of the Copyright Act; (ii) Further or alternatively damages in respect of loss of sales and reputation; (iii) Alternatively an account of profits; (iv) Alternatively damages; and {d) Such further or other orders as may be appropriate." By its Second Amended Statement of Claim (pars 3 and 4) the applicant, a New Zealand corporation, alleges that in or about 1978 it acquired a licence to manufacture and distribute throughout New Zealand and overseas, and began manufacturing, a log burning heater known as "The Kent Log Fire", that in or about 1979 it designed and began manufacturing a variation thereof known as "The Tile Fire", and that it has marketed and sold its heaters in Australia and has acquired a substantial reputation in respect of them. It is further alleged (par.6) that since in or about July 1982 the first, third and fourth respondents, or one or more of them, have copied the design of the Tile Fire and manufactured and marketed a heater under the name "Erik 2000" also called "the Hornet" and sometimes without name described as "Slow Combustion Heater". in the pleading, this heater 1s referred to as "the Erik 2000". It is also alleged (par.8) that the first, third and fourth respondents have since July 1982 distributed and sold the Erik 2000 heaters in Australia and in doing so have put forward such heaters as an Australian version of the Tile Fire and led the public to believe that they were affiliated with the applicant. The first, third and fourth respondents are alleged to have claimed that the Erik 2000 is equal to the Tile Fire in its quality of manufacture and performance. Paragraph 9 of the Second Amended Statement of Claim is in the following terms: "9, Kent claims that:- (a) In copying the design of the Kent heater; (b) In manufacturing and marketing the Erik 2000 heater being almost identical in design, dimension and appearance to the Tile Fire; (c) In distributing and selling the Erik 2000 heater as aforesaid; and (ad) In claiming equality of quality of manufacture and performance; the First, Third and Fourth Respondents, or one or more of them, have contravened Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act in that they have engaged and are continuing to engage in conduct that is misleading and deceptive or which is likely to mislead or deceive." The second respondent, who is and was at all material times the managing director of the first respondent, is said to have been involved in the contravention of s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) within the meaning of that expression in s.82 thereof (see also s.75B). The applicant also alleges (par.14) that since about July 1982 the first, third and fourth respondents, or one or other of them, infringed the applicant's copyright in certain plans by producing or causing to be produced drawings and writings which were copies of such plans, by reproducing each of the plans in the form of the Erik 2000 heaters, by reproducing the individual components depicted in the plans in the form of the components of the Erik 2000 heaters and by selling and by offering or exposing the Erik 2000 heaters for sale by way of trade without the applicant's licence. meee ea ee 5. The first and second respondents, apart from admitting that the first respondent has since about July 1982 manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold the Erik 2000 heater in Australia, have put in issue all the other allegations of substance set out in the Second Amended Statement of Claim. It will be necessary to consider seriatim the interrogatories in question. By way of preface, for reasons which will become apparent, attention should be focussed on the need for precision in the framing of interrogatories. As Blackburn C.d. said in Kupresak v. Clifton Bricks (Canberra) Pty. Ltd. (1984) 75 F.L.R. 172 at p.174: "It needs to be said (certainly not for the first time) that interrogatories and answers should be expressed in language of the most rigorous precision. This requirement is not mere pedantry. The nature and purpose of interrogatories and answers (being the seeking and the supply, respectively, of evidence in writing on oath) call for the strictest adherence to the letter of the words used. There is no place in interrogatories and answers for 'reading between the lines', adopting a liberal construction, or seeking the author's intention rather than the meaning the words bear on their face. Unless this principle is kept in mind, interrogatories may easily become an unjustifiable cause of expense and delay." See also Atochem S.A. v. Button (Federal Court of Australia (Burchett J.) - unreported - 7 March 1986). 6. Interrogatory 1 asked - "Which person designed, planned or invented the Erik 2000?" The first and second respondents objected to answering this interrogatory on the ground - "that it proceeds on anassumption which is neither proved nor admitted namely that the Erik 2000 was designed, planned or invented by a person." I uphold the refusal to answer on the ground relied upon by the first and second respondents and on the further ground that it lacks the necessary precision. It treats the designing, planning and inventing of the Erik 2000 as mutually exclusive events. How is an answer to be framed if, for example, the Erik 2000 was not only planned but also designed and invented or if one person designed it, another planned it and a third invented it? Interrogatory 2 asked - uw "With regard to the answer given to 1, who was that person employed by?" This interrogatory cannot stand independently of interrogatory 1. It is also objectionable in that the draftsman has failed to include an interrogatory designed to elicit whether the person referred to in the answer to interrogatory l was employed at the relevant time. The 7. question is also too wide in asking who was the person's employer. The relevant question 1s whether he was employed by the first respondent at the relevant time. Interrogatory 3 asked - "Under which person's direction did the person referred to in 1 design, plan or invent the Erik 2000?" This interrogatory is dependent on interrogatory 1 and is, in any event, objectionable in that it assumes that the person concerned, in designing, planning or inventing the Erik 2000, was acting under the direction of another person. Interrogatory 4 asked - "When was the Erik 2000 designed, planned or invented?" The objection taken is that the interrogatory proceeds on an assumption which is neither proved nor admitted namely that the Erik 2000 was designed, planned or invented. I uphold that objection. The interrogatory is also objectionable in that it treats the designing, planning or inventing as mutually exclusive events. Interrogatory 5 asked - "Did the person who designed, planned or invented the Erik 2000 have a Kent Tile Fire or a Kent Log Fire or any part thereof in his or her possession 8. at the time he/she designed, planned or invented the Erik 2000? If the answer is yes, give particulars." Objection to answering this interrogatory was taken in the following terms - "it proceeds on an assumption which is neither proved nor admitted, namely that a person designed, planned or invented the Erik 72000. Further, the interrogatory is oppressive and embarrassing by reason of the inclusion of the final sentence therein which is ambiguous as to its requirement." Interrogatory 5 is clearly dependent on interrogatory 1 and, in any event, need not be answered in its present form. The requirement to give particulars read with the earlier part of the interrogatory is imprecise and objectionable. Interrogatory 6 asked - "If the answer to 5 is that the person had a part of the Kent Tile Fire or Kent Log Fire in his/her possession which part(s) was it?" This interrogatoéry is dependent on interrogatory 5 which I have found to be objectionable. Interrogatory 7 asked - "Did the person who designed, planned or invented the Erik 2000 have any drawing, brochure or other documentary material depicting the Kent Log Fire or the Kent Tile Fire (or a part thereof)? If so, give particulars." Apart from any other objection, this interrogatory 15 objectionable as it is not limited in point of time. Interrogatory 8 asked - "Did the person who designed, planned or invented the Erik 2000 make any sketches, drawings, diagrams or specifications of or for the Erik 2000?" This interrogatory suffers from the same defect as interrogatory 1. It is also objectionable as it contains no limitation as to time. Interrogatory 9 asked - "If the answer to 8 is yes, where are they?" This interrogatory is dependent upon interrogatory 8 and, as that interrogatory is objectionable, interrogatory 9 need not be answered. aw Interrogatories 10 and 11 asked - "10. Did the person who designed, planned or invented the Erik 2000 make a prototype of the Erik 2000? ll. If the answer to 10 is yes, where is it?" Interrogatory 10 has the same defect as interrogatory l. Interrogatory 11 is dependent on interrogatory 10. . 10. Interrogatory 12, which asked when the Erik 2000 was first manufactured, was answered by stating that first manufacture took place in the month of October 1983. Interrogatory 13 then asked - "Who manufactured the Erik 2000?" This was objected to on the ground that it was not limited to any particular time or any particular unit. I think that objection is well taken. In any event, both the first and second respondents have admitted on the pleadings that the first respondent manufactured the Erik 2000 so that the interrotarory does not relate to any issue in the proceedings. Interrogatory 14 asked - "Under which person's direction was the Erik 2000 manufactured?" This interrogatory assumes an answer to an intérrogatory that the draftsman did not ask, namely whether the Erik 2000 was manufactured under the direction of a person. Counsel for the applicant said that it was intended to elicit the name of the person who supervised or was in charge of production. If that is what was intended the interrogatory requires redrafting. It need not be answered in its present form. il. Interrogatory 15 asked - "Since it has been manufactured, who has marketed the Erik 20007" As both the first and second respondents have admitted on the pleadings that the first respondent has marketed the Erik 2000, this interrogatory need not be answered. Interrogatory 16 asked - "Under which person's direction has the Erik 2000 been marketed?" Again, this interrogatory proceeds on an assumption which 1s neither proved nor admitted and is objectionable. Interrogatory 18 asked - "How many units of the Erik 2000 has' the First Respondent had in its possession or control?" Iam not satisfied that this interrogatory is relevant to rtd any issue that arises in the proceedings. It, therefore, need not be answered. Interrogatory 19 asked - "In what capacity has the First Respondent had these units 1n its possession or control?" 12. This interrogatory cannot stand in the light of my rejection of interrogatory 18. Interrogatory 20 asked - "Has the First Respondent distributed the Erik 2000?" The first and second respondents objected to answering this interrogatory on the ground that it was oppressive and was not restricted as to any particular time. There is no substance in this objection. However, the first and second respondents have admitted on the pleadings that the first respondent distributed the Erik 2000 so that the interrogatory should not have been asked and need not be answered. Interrogatory 21 asked - "Under which person's direction did the First Respondent distribute the Erik 2000?" This interrogatory is dependent upon interrogatory 20 which I have found need not be answered. Interrogatory 22 asked - "How many units of the Erik 2000 has the First Respondent distributed?" 13. This interrogatory was objected to on the ground that it proceeded onan assumption which was neither proved nor admitted namely that the first respondent had distributed units of the Erik 2000. In view of the admission on the pleadings as to distribution, there is no substance in this objection. The interrogatory is relevant to the question of damages and should be answered. Interrogatory 23 asked - "If the answer to 20 is yes, has any other person or company distributed the Erik 2000? If so, who?" This interrogatory depends upon interrogatory 20. In any event it is too wide in its present form to be relevant to any issue in the proceedings. Interrogatory 24 asked ~- "If the answer to 20 is no, who has distributed the Erik 2000?" ¢ As this interrogatory depends on interrogatory 20, it need not be answered. Interrogatory 25 asked - "Has the First Respondent advertised the Erik 2000?" 14. This interrogatory was objected to as being unrestricted as to time. In my opinion, having regard to the issues as they emerge from the pleadings, the objection taken to this interrogatory is mot well founded and the interrogatory should be answered by the first and second respondents. Interrogatory 26 asked - "Under which person's direction did the First Respondent advertise the Erik 2000?" This interrogatory proceeds upon an assumption that an answer has been given to an unasked question. It need not be answered in its present form. Interrogatory 27 asked - "How many units of the Erik 2000 has the First Respondent advertised?" This interrogatory should, I think, be disallowed. In referring to the number of units that have been advertised it departs, without explanation, from the language of the previous interrogatory which refers to the advertising of the product itself. The latter is understandable, the former, without more, is not. Interrogatories 28 and 29 asked - "28. If the answer to 25 is yes, has any other person or company advertised the Erik 2000? If 50, who? 15. 29. If the answer to 25 is no, who has advertised the Erik 2000?" These interrogatories are too wide and should be disallowed. They would require inquiries to be made beyond the first and second respondents' servants and agents. Interrogatory 30 asked ~ "Has the First Respondent offered for sale the Erik 2000?" This interrogatory is not relevant to any issue in the proceedings. The allegation pleaded is that the first respondent sold the Erik 2000 and that allegation is admitted. Interrogatory 31 asked - "Under which person's direction did the First Respondent offer the Erik 2000 for sale?" For the reasons" given in relation to interrogatory 30, this interrogatory need not be answered. In any event it assumes an answer to an unasked question. Interrogatory 32 asked - "How many units of the Erik 2000 has' the First Respondent offered for sale?" 16. This interrogatory depends on interrogatory 30 and need not be answered. Interrogatories 33 and 34 asked - "33. If the answer to 30 is yes, has any other person or company offered for sale the Erik 2000? Tf so, who? 34. If the answer to 30 is no, who has offered for sale the Erik 2000?" These are too wide and, therefore, objectionable. They need not be answered. Interrogatory 35 asked - "Has the First Respondent sold any units or parts of the Erik 2000?" There is an admission on the pleadings that units were sold. There is no allegation in in the pleadings to which the selling of parts of units is relevant. The interrogatory, therefore, need,-not be answered. Interrogatory 36 asked - "Under which person's direction did the First Respondent sell the Erik 2000 unit or parts?" Apart from any other objection, this interrogatory assumes an answer to-an unasked question and need not be answered in its present form. . 17. fnterrogatory 37 asked - "(Ca) How many units of the Erik 2000 has the First Respondent sold? (b) How many parts of the Erik 2000 has the First Respondent sold?" The objection to interrogatory 37(a) 1s an objection that it is unlimited as to time. I do not think that objection is well taken having regard to the issues as they appear from the pleadings. The objection to interrogatory 37(b) is sustained as there is no allegation in the amended statement of claim to which the selling of parts is relevant. Interrogatory 38 asked ~ "If the answer to 35 is yes:- (a) Has any other person or company sold the Erik 2000 or parts thereof'? (b) If so, who? (c) If that person or company has sold parts of the Erik 2000 which parts?" aw This interrogatory is dependent on interrogatory 35 and need not be answered in its present form. Interrogatory 39 asked - "Tf the answer to 35 is no, who has sold the Erik 2000?" 18. This interrogatory is objectionable as it requires inquiries to be made of persons other than the servants and agents of the first and second respondents. Sales made by persons other than such servants or agents are irrelevant to the issues as disclosed by the pleadings. Interrogatory 40 asked - "What was the total gross revenue of the sales of the Erik 2000?" This interrogatory was objected to as being too wide. Read in the context of the earlier interrogatories which, in terms, were wide enough to encompass sales by persons other than the first and second respondents and their respective servants or agents, it could be considered to suffer from the same defect as those earlier interrogatories. However, once those interrogatories are struck out, this interrogatory is to be read as relating to sales by or on behalf of the first and second respondents and should, in ny view, be answered. ¢ Interrogatory 41 asked - "What has been the retail sales value per unit of the Erik 2000?" This interrogatory is imprecise and need not be answered in its present form. One would think that the interrogatory should have referred to the sale price per unit rather than 19. the sales value. The interrogatory does not indicate how the sales value is to be ascertained. Interrogatory 42 asked - "What has been the manufacturing cost per unit of the Erik 2000?" This interrogatory does not specify a time as at which the manufacturing cost is to be ascertained. I think it should be drafted in more precise terms. In any event, manufacturing costs per unit would appear to be irrelevant to any issue arising on the pleadings. The interrogatory need not be answered in its present form. Interrogatory 43 asked - "What has been the marketing/advertising cost per unit of the Erik 2000?" This interrogatory displays similar defects to Interrogatories 41 and 42 but even more acutely and need not be answered in its present form. Interrogatory 44 asked - "What has been the distribution cost per unit of the Erik 2000?" The language of this interrogatory is too vague. It need not be answered in its present form. 20. Interrogatory 46 asked - "Has the First Respondent manufactured, distributed, advertised, marketed, offered for sale or sold, or otherwise dealt with, a heater Similar to, or substantially similar to, the Erik 2000?" This interrogatory is objectionable as it does not relate to any issue arising on the pleadings. The applicant conceded that it need not be answered. Interrogatory 47 asked - "If the answer to question 46 is yes, then:- (a) What was the name of the heater? (b) What was the total number of units involved? (c) What was the value of the total number of units involved?" The applicant conceded that this interrogatory need not be answered. iw Interrogatory 50 asked - "Has any other person or company manufactured, distributed, advertised, marketed, offered for sale or sold, or otherwise dealt with, a heater similar to, or substantially similar to, the Erik 2000? If so:- (a) What is the name of that person or company? (b) What was the name used for the heater?" tJ f2 The appiicant conceded that this interrogatory need not be answered. Interrogatories 54 and 55 askea - "S54. Has the Furst Respondenc ever manufactured, distributed, advertised, marketed, offered for sale or sold, of otherwise dealt with, a heater as depictead in the copy advertisement being document number 67 in the Applicant's Supplementary List of Documents? 55. If the answer to 54 is yes, answer questions 1 to 45 (inclusive) apove, as if each of those questions was asked in relation to that heater (that is as if the name of that heater description was used in place of the name 'the Erik 2000'). The advertisement referred to was in the following form - rSLOW C OMe USTION ; HEATERS - Direct fom eT Ses 22. Interrogatory 54 was objected to in the following terms: "I object to answering this interrogatory as 1t is oppressive: 1t 1s not restricted as to any particular time: it is fishing: it is not material to matters in dispute between the applicant and the first and second respondents herein or either of them. Further, the facts sought in answer to the interrogatory would require the first respondent to make unreasonable and unnecessary enquiries." It was said on behalf of the applicant that these interrogatories were designed to elicit evidence in support of par.6 of the Second Amended Statement of Claim. That paragraph, as has already been mentioned, refers to the manufacture and marketing by the first, third and fourth respondents of "a heater under the name 'Erik 2000' also called 'the Hornet' and sometimes without name described as ou 'Slow Combustion Heater'". Counsel for the applicant accepted that par.6 of the Second Amended Statement of Claim refers only to one type of heater "marketed under different names namely "Erik 2000" or "the Hornet" or without name. He submitted that the interrogatories were necessary as the applicant was entitled to know whether, for example, the answer given by the first and second respondents to interrogatory 17 (which asked how many units of the Erik 2000 had been manufactured) referred to all units of that type whether marketed under either of the names mentioned or without brand name. 23. It is important to note that, immediately following the words quoted above, par.6 of the Second Amended Statement of Claim continues: "The Plaintiff fCapplicantl] hereinafter refers to these heaters as 'the Erik 2000'. This heater is almost identical in design, dimension and appearance to the Tile Fire." Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Second Amended Statement of Claim are also relevant. Paragraph 8 alleges distribution and sale of "the Erik 2000 heaters in Australia" and par.9 alleges, inter alia, that in manufacturing, marketing, distributing and selling "the Erik 2000 heater being almost identical in design, dimension and appearance to the Tile Fire" the first, third and fourth respondents have contravened s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). It is also to be noted that the first and second respondents in their respective defences admit that the first respondent has manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold the "Erik 2000" heater. It may be a question whether the phrase "the Erik 2000 heater" is used in the defences in the same sense as it is used in pars 8 and 93 of the Second Amended Statement of Claim. The interrogatories preceding interrogatory 54 refer to "the Erik 2000" but those references are to be read in the light of the statement made in the notice to answer interrogatories that in the interrogatories certain . . 24, abbreviations have been used. One of those abbreviations was the expression "the Erik 2000" which was said to refer to: "The heater referred to in the CSecondd Amended Statement of Claim filed herein and in particular referred to in paragraph 9 of the Statement of Defence filed by the First Respondent and the Second Respondent." Paragraph 9 of the respective defences of the first and second respondents admitted that the first respondent distributed and sold the "Erik 2000" heater in Australia. It, therefore, appears that the interrogatories preceding interrogatory 54 were drafted on the basis of requiring answers in respect of the Erik 2000 heather whether manufactured and marketed under that name or under the name "the Hornet" or without brand name. If any ambiguity remains it must be laid at the door of the applicant and cannot be used to support an application that the first and second respondents answer interrogatories 54 and 55. In my opinion, those interrogatories need not be answered. Interrogatory 56 asked - "Look at the copy advertisement depicting a 'Slow Combustion Heater' and being document number 67 in the Applicant's Supplementary List of Documents. Now answer the following questions:- 25. (a) Has the First Respondent seen a heater of the type depicted in that advertisement? (b) Is the heater appearing in the advertisement similar or substantially similar to the Erik 2000? (c) Who manufactures the heater depicted in the advertisement? (d) Who distributes the heater depicted in the advertisement? (e) Who selis the heater depicted in the advertisement? (f£) With regard to the answers given for (c), (d) and (e) herein, did the First Respondent authorise those persons to manufacture, distribute or sell that heater, as the case may be?" Paragraphs (a) and (b) were answered in the affirmative. The applicant conceded that par.(c) was irrelevant and need not be answered. Paragraphs (d), (e) and (f£) are equally irrelevant and need not be answered. Interrogatory 57 asked - "57. Look at the bundle of correspondence between the First Respondent and Durelink Engineering Pty. Ltd, (hereinafter 'Durelink') and Can-Fab Engineering Pty. Ltd (hereinafter 'Can-Fab'), appearing as document number 5 in the First and Second Respondent's Csicl list of Documents dated the 28th of May 1983 and answer the following questions:- (a) What is or was the relationship between the First Respondent and Durelink? (b) What function did Durelink perform with regard to the manufacture, distribution, supply or sale of 'the Erik 2000'? (c) Has the Second Respondent had any « relationship with Durelink? If so, give details. a ae (da) Ce) (ft) The objections 26. What is or was the relationship between the First Respondent and Can-Fab? What function did Can-Fab perform with regard to the manufacture, distribution, supply or sale of 'the Erik 2000'? Has the Second Respondent had any relationship with Can-Fab? Is s0, give details." to answering the various questions asked in this iunterrogatory were expressed in the answer in following terms - "(a) (b) (c) I object to answering this interrogatory as it is oppressive: it is ambiguous: it is not restricted as to time: it is fishing: it proceeds onan assumption which is neither proved nor admitted namely that there is or was a relationship between the first respondent and Durelink: it does not relate to matters in dispute between the applicant and the first respondent and the second respondent or either of them. I object to answering this interrogatory as it is oppressive: it is not restricted as to any particular time: it proceeds on an assumption which is neither proved nor admitted namely that Durelink performed a function with regard to the manufacture, distribution, supply or sale of the Erik 2000: it is fishing, it does not relate to matters in dispute between the applicant and the first respondent and the second respondent or either of them. I object to answering this interrogatory as it is oppressive: it is not restricted as to any particular time: it is fishing: it is embarrassing as it does not specify the details which are to be given: it does not relate to matters in dispute between the applicant and the first respondent and the second respondent or either of them. the 27. (d) I object to answering this interrogatory as it 15S oppressive: it is ambiguous: it 1s not restricted as to time: it is fishing: it} proceeds on an assumption which is neither proved nor admitted namely that there is or was a relationship between the first respondent and Durelink [Esicd: it does not relate to Matters in dispute between the applicant and the first respondent and the second respondent or either of them. Ce) I object to answering this interrogatory as it 1S oppressive: it is not restricted as to any particular time: it proceeds on an assumption which is neither proved nor admitted namely that Durelink Csicl performed a function with regard to the manufacture, distribution, supply or sale of the Erik 2000: it is fishing, it does not relate to matters in dispute between the applicant and the first respondent and the second respondent or either of them. (f) I object to answering this interrogatory as it is oppressive: it is not restricted as to any particular time: it is fishing: it is embarrassing as it does not specify the details which are to be given: it does not relate to matters in dispute between the applicant and the first respondent and the second respondent or either of them." In my opinion interrogatory 57 is too imprecise to be allowed. It is by no means clear what the interrogator means by the word "relationship" in questions (a), (c), (d) and (f). Those questions are, in any event, expressed at large in terms of relationship and are not limited in such a way as to demonstrate on their face their relevance to the issues that arise on the pleadings. Further, no time is stated as at which the questions are to be answered. This defect is accentuated by the use of the words "is or was" in questions (a) and (d). Questions (b) and (e) are expressed in very general terms and are not limited, on their face, to . 28. a function performed on behalf of the first or second respondents. InLerrogatory 57 need not be answered in its present form. Interrogatory 58, so far as relevant for present purposes, asked - "Look at the manufacturing contract disclosed by the First and Second Respondents as document number 6 i1n their List of Documents dated the 28th of May 1983 and answer the following questions:- (a) What is the date of the agreement? This question was objected to on the ground that it amounted to cross-examination on the contents of a document. However, examination of the document referred to in the preamble to the interrogatory reveals that, while it purports to have been executed by the parties, the provision in it for the insertion of its date has not been completed. In my opinion, this question should be answered, Interrogatory 59, so far as material for present purposes, asked - "Took at the two pages of handwritten notes appearing in the bundle of documents discovered in the First and Second Respondent's Csicd List of Documents dated the 28th of May 1983 as document number 6 and answer the following questions:- 29. (a) Whose handwriting appears on those two documents? (b) Who employed the person referred to in (a)? (c) At the time that those handwritten drawings and writings were made, had a prototype of the 'Erik 2000' been constructed? (f) Where is the prototype of the 'Erik 2000'°?" The first and second respondents answered question (a) by stating that the person was the second respondent but objected to answering question (b) on the grounds that it proceeded on an assumption neither proved nor admitted that the person referred to in (a) was employed by someone and that the question was oppressive and too wide as it was not restricted as to any particular time. I think this objection is well taken. Question (b) need not be answered in its present form. The first and second respondents answered question (c) in the affirmative but objected to answering question (f) on the ground that it proceeded on an assumption neither proved nor admitted that there was a prototype of the Erik 2000. As the answer to question (c) admitted that there was sucha prototype, the objection cannot be sustained. The question should be answered. Interrogatory 62 asked - "Did the Second Respondent supervise and/or direct the First Respondent, in any of the following regards:- 30. (a) manufacture; (b) marketing; (c) distribution; and/or (d) selling; of the Erik 2000? If so, give details?" The first and second respondents answered question (a) in the negative and questions (b), (c) and (d) in the affirmative but objected to giving details as the question was in that respect "embarrassing and too wide and oppressive". In my opinion the objection is well taken and no further answer to interrogatory 62 is required. Interrogatory 63 asked - "If the answer to any part of 62 is no, then which person supervised and/or directed that work?" The applicant conceded that this interrogatory need not be answered. In the result, I am of opinion that the first and second respondents are required to make further answer, verified by affidavit in accordance with 0.16, r.7 of the Federal Court Rules, to interrogatories numbered 22, 25, 37(a), 40, 58 and 59(f). Otherwise, the motion is dismissed. As the applicant has substantially failed, the a . 31. appropriate order for costs 1s that the applicant pay three-quarters of the costs of the first and second respondents of the motion. I certify that this and the preceding 30 pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Mr Justice Neaves. Associate Dated: 3 April 1987 Counsel for the applicant Solicitors for the applicant Mr N.Jd. Topfer Stephen Jacques Stone James Counsel for the first and second respondents Solicitor for the first and second respondents Mr S.L. Walmsley oo Ray Swift Date of hearing 8 September 1986 or