Sagittarian Enterprises Pty Ltd & Ors v Ampol Ltd [1987] FCA 330

er ee hoe

Due cy

NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION

ee

NO. WAG 9 of 1986 BETWEEN: SAGITTARIAN ENTERPRISES PTY LIMITED First Applicant RAYMOND ARTHUR WOOLLETT AND KAYE LORRAINE WOOLLETT Second Applicants and AMPOL LIMITED Respondent CORAM: FRENCH J. 8 MAY 19387

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR _ JUDGMENT

This 1S a notice of motion seeking orders that the respondent make and file further answers to certain interrogatories administered by the applicants in these proceedings. The broad nature and scope of the proceedings and the 2ssues canvassed in the pleadings filed to date have recently been xefexrred to by the Court in dealing with a motion on the part of the respondent to strike out the proceedings and/ox

altexnatively certain parts of the statement of claim.

— —

The interrogatories for which, ; oY

ny a m - fall into two groups: the first gkotp 'Seaks Cfrom! fry" + ON Beg information as to whether or not the 7speand t- <> O85 L ' ae a ed ' < O.

{ee

wnt gt

Sere oe

eee eae

ste er cr re re oe creer

womens oe

3. ere

&

2.

applicant, Mrs Woollett, was present at varl1lous meetings at which the respondent evidently alleges that 1t informed the first named second applicant of the existence of a lease; that is to say, that

the respondent was not the owner of the subject premises.

The matter arises under the pleadings in this way: in para. 3 of the defence and in answer to paras. 6 and 7 of the amended statement of claim the respondent alleges, in substance, that Mr Woollett knew, at all material times prior to the execution of the franchise agreement which 1s in issue and which was executed in July 1981, that the respondent was itself a lessee of the premises and that, in any event, he was orally informed by the respondent, before he executed the agreement, of the expiry date of the lease entered into by the respondent in respect of the