NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Karl Suleman Enterprizes Pty Limited (In Liquidation) v Suzy David & Ors [2007] NSWSC 401
HEARING DATE(S) : 5/03/07
JUDGMENT DATE : 3 May 2007
JUDGMENT OF : Patten AJ at 1
DECISION : See paragraph 59
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules LEGISLATION CITED : Civil Procedure Act 2005 Corporations Law Companies Act 1936
Venacom Pty Ltd v Morgan Brooks Pty Ltd (2006) NSWSC 43 Director General Department of Community Services v D (2006) NSWSC 827 CASES CITED : McBride v Sandland (1917) SALR 249 Summerville v Walsh Court of Appeal unreported 26 February 1998. Lang v Australian Shipping Commission and Anor (1974)2 NSWLR 70 Haywood v Collaroy Services Beach Club (2005) NSWSC (203)
PARTIES : Karl Suleman Enterprizes Pty Limited (In Liquidation) - Plaintiff Suzy David & Ors - Defendant
FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20258 of 2003
COUNSEL : Mr G Laughton SC - Plaintiff Mr M Dicker - Defendant
SOLICITORS : Corrs Chambers Westgarth - Plaintiff Middletons - Defendant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION
Patten AJ
3 May 2007
No: 20258 of 2003
Karl Suleman Enterprizes Pty Ltd v Suzy David and Ors
JUDGMENT 1 This was a motion for leave to administer interrogatories to the First Defendant (Ms David). Mr Laughton SC appeared for the Applicant Plaintiff and Mr Dicker of counsel for Ms David.
2 The motion filed on 6 October 2006 seeks leave to administer interrogatories in the form annexed to the affidavit of Mr B. T. I Black sworn 4 October 2006. A copy is attached to this judgment. As will be observed, the interrogatories are numbered 1 to 62 but many contain multiple parts. 3 Rule 22.1 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules stipulates that an order for the administration of interrogatories should not be made unless they are necessary. Rule 22.2 provides: "A party may not object to being ordered to answer an interrogatory except on the following grounds: (a) the interrogatory does not relate to any matter in issue between that party and the party seeking the order. (b) the interrogatory is vexatious or oppressive, (c) the answer to the interrogatory could disclose privileged information."
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate