Kintyre Holdings Pty Ltd v Barwood Parker Pty Ltd & Anor [1988] FCA 362

JUDGMENT No. Zo2.) Boone

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION 1

LIMITED DISTRIBUTION

No. WAG 121 of 1987

See re

BETWE EN: KINTYRE HOLDINGS PTY LTD Applicant and BARWOOD PARKER PTY LTD

First Respondent

and

MICHAEL PARKER

CORAM: FRENCH J.

REUui. 9 June 1988 04.5UL 1988

FEDERAL GOW GF empties Ti

ON LEAVE TO INTERROGATE

b

A PHIAT Raa oe 0; nes HAL

The Applicant's Interrogatorie

The function of the court at this stage is to decide whether or not it should give leave to interrogate, there being no particular objections raised by the respondents to any of the interrogatories. Nor do the respondents object to the grant of leave in respect of the draft which has been filed and served on

them by the applicant.

However, aS I indicated in the course of argument, the question of leave is not solely a matter for the parties and the requirement of leave was introduced so that the Court might control the use of interrogatories in civil litigation and confine

it to that which is necessary for the fair and expeditious

2.

disposition of the proceedings. I am prepared to grant leave to the applicant to interrogate in terms of interrogatory 1. I am not prepared to grant leave to interrogate in respect of interrogatory 2 which, it seems to me, is, in substance, a request

for particulars of an anticipated amendment to the defence.

I will give leave to interrogate in terms of interrogatory 3 and interrogatory 4(a) and 4(b) down to and including (iii), but I will not give leave to interrogate in terms of 4(b)(iv) which is again, in substance, a _ request for particulars the answer to which can establish little more than what the respondent asserts as distinct from the fact. I will

grant leave to interrogate in terms of interrogatory 5.

I am not satisfied that interrogatories 6 to9 will advance the fair and expeditious hearing of the case. The question of the normal or usual practice of the Water Authority of Western Australia is a question best answered by that Authority or perhaps by somebody with wide ranging experience of its practices, but, at this stage, it seems to me that the question contained in interrogatory 6 and the subsidiary questions would, if properly answered, impose upon the respondents an obligation to make inquiry of the Water Authority and, ultimately, to put on oath the responses that they had from that Authority. In my opinion, such