INGLIS AND ANOR V. COMMONWEALTH TRADING BANK OF AUSTRALIA

TNO UOT SYUA UF AOI NALA

{163 a

AUSTRALIA

ORIGINA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BR 1972 THURSDAY.

INGLIS AND ANOTHER

Ve

COMMONWEALTH TRADING BANK OF AUSTRALIA

JUDGMENT MASON J.

INGLIS AND ANOTHER

ve

COMMONWEALTH TRADING BANK OF AUSTRALIA

I have before me in these matters two summonses which have been issued by the plaintiffs. The first summons seeks an adjournment of the hearing of the action which was fixed for yesterday, Wednesday, 28th November, to a date unspecified in the summons. The second summons seeks an order that further and better answers be required from the defendant on interrogatories delivered to it by the plaintiffs. I propose to deal first with the application for an adjournment of the hearing.

In considering that application, I should state briefly the nature of the action. By their statement of claim, the plaintiffs seek relief against the defendant bank in respect of breach of contract, fraud and conspiracy. They also seek relief against the defendant in respect of alleged defamation, an order for the taking of accounts on the basis of wilful neglect and default, and damages for breach of statutory duty.

The issues in the action are complex and multifarious. The statement of claim runs to some forty-two pages. The statement of defence is only slightly shorter in length.

The parties came to issue on the pleadings in December 1971. The action was not set down for trial by the plaintiffs, It was entered for trial by the defendant on 31st August 1972 and set down for hearing in the November sittings

2.

of the Court. In the call-over list at the beginning of this month it was fixed by the Chief Justice for hearing on Wednesday, 29th November.

Until October 1972, some eleven months after the parties were at issue on the pleadings, no step was taken by the plaintiffs to obtain discovery and inspection of documents, or to deliver interrogatories. On 18th October 1972, the plaintiffs then served on the defendant notice to produce under the provisions of 0. 32 r. 14. Steps were taken at or about this time to require the defendant to file an affidavit of discovery and to produce documents. On 24th October the plaintiffs delivered interrogatories for the examination of the defendant, The defendant filed an affidavit of discovery in November of 1972. It subsequently delivered further affidavits by way of answer to the interrogatories. In the same month it gave an answer to the notice to produce which had been served under 0. 32 r. LD. At an earlier time, on 30th October 1972, it filed its affidavit of discovery, and it has subsequently given inspection of documents under that affidavit and under the notice to produce.