Rivkin v Nationwide News Pty Limited (ACN 008 438 828) [2002] NSWSC 798

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Rivkin v Nationwide News Pty Limited (ACN 008 438 828) [2002] NSWSC 798 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20532/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 4/9/02 JUDGMENT DATE : 6 September 2002

PARTIES : Rene Rivkin (Plaintiff) Nationwide News Pty Limited (Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Bell J at 1

COUNSEL : T.D.F. Hughes (Plaintiff) T.D. Blackburn (Defendant) SOLICITORS : Gilbert & Tobin (Plaintiff) Gallagher De Reszke (Defendant) DECISION : The defendant is to provide answers to the plaintiff's interrogatories numbered 4(a) & (b) and 5; The plaintiff is to give further and better discovery within seven days of documents within the classes described in paragraphs (1) - (11) in the defendant's letter of 11 April 2002; The plaintiff is to answer the whole of the defendant's interrogatories numbered 7; The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the defendant's motion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

BELL J

6 September 2002

20532/00 Rene RIVKIN v NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LIMITED, (ACN 008 438 828)

JUDGMENT 1 BELL J: By notice of motion filed on 28 May 2002 the plaintiff sought an order that the defendant provide responsive answers to the plaintiff's interrogatories numbered 4(a) & (b), 5 and 6. 2 By notice of motion filed on 8 July 2002 the defendant sought orders that the proceedings be dismissed for failure to comply with the court's order that the plaintiff answer interrogatories (in the alternative, that the proceedings stand dismissed if the plaintiff failed to deliver answers to the defendant's interrogatories within seven days) and that the plaintiff give further and better discovery within seven days. 3 Both motions were listed for hearing on Wednesday 4 September 2002. The defendant was ordered to file written submissions by 5:00 pm on 2 September and the plaintiff to respond to the same by 5:00 pm by 3 September. In the event no written submissions were filed in accordance with the timetable. 4 When the matter came on for hearing I was informed that the parties had by agreement resolved the matters the subject of the plaintiff's notice of motion. The defendant has agreed to the provision of responsive answers to the plaintiff's interrogatories 4 and 5. In the light of that agreement the plaintiff no longer presses for an answer to interrogatory 6. 5 Since the filing of the defendant's motion on 8 July last I was told that the plaintiff had provided answers to the interrogatories served on him. Thus, the defendant sought orders in somewhat different terms to those set out in its notice of motion. Mr Blackburn, who appeared on the defendant's behalf, took issue with the sufficiency of the plaintiff's answer to interrogatory 7. He sought an order that the plaintiff provide a verified answer to the balance of interrogatory 7. 6 On the hearing of the motion Mr Blackburn refined the terms of the order sought for discovery conformably with Part 23 r 3 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970. The defendant seeks discovery of documents falling within the classes described in subparagraphs (1) – (11) of a letter by its solicitors addressed to the plaintiff's solicitors dated 11 April 2002.