Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Collier v Country Women's Association of New South Wales (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 422 Hearing dates: 7 April 2017 Decision date: 07 April 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: McCallum J Decision: Orders as sought in short minutes Catchwords: DEFAMATION – discovery and interrogatories – complaint by defendant as to adequacy of plaintiff's compliance with previous orders – no question of principle Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 22.1(4) Cases Cited: Collier v Country Women's Association of New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 22 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Marion Louise Collier (plaintiff) Country Women's Association of New South Wales (defendant) Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff self-represented (via telephone) S Chrysanthou (defendant) Solicitors: Mills Oakley (defendant) File Number(s): 2016/122571 JUDGMENT 1. HER HONOUR: These are proceedings for defamation commenced by Mrs Marion Collier against the Country Women's Association of New South Wales. 2. The proceedings were commenced by statement of claim filed 21 April 2016. On 12 August 2016, the proceedings came before the Court for consideration of any interlocutory steps sought by the parties, as contemplated by cl 16 of the Defamation List Practice Note SC CL 4. On that occasion, after hearing argument (and accepting some of Mrs Collier's objections to the steps sought by the defendant), I made the following orders: (1) The plaintiff to serve a verified list of documents in accordance with the categories sought on 5 August 2016 on or before 9 September 2016. (2) The plaintiff to serve verified answers to interrogatories on or before 9 September 2016. 1. On 16 September 2016, I rejected an application by Mrs Collier for leave to file an amended statement of claim. Following an unsuccessful application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against that decision (see Collier v Country Women's Association of New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 22), the proceedings have now been re-listed for the purpose of determining a dispute as to Mrs Collier's compliance with the orders of 12 August 2016. 2. The defendant submits that Mrs Collier has failed to comply with each of the orders set out above and seeks the following orders today: (1) The time for the plaintiff to serve a verified list of documents in relation to "all documents evidencing any communications between the plaintiff and the CWA (including any of the CWA's officers, employees or members) from 1 January 2015 to date relating to the CWA" be extended until 28 April 2017. (2) That the time for the plaintiff to serve verified answers to interrogatories be extended to 28 April 2017. (3) The defendant to serve verified answers to the interrogatories proposed by the plaintiff on or before 28 April 2017. (4) The matter [be] listed for further directions on 5 May 2017. 1. I have this morning heard submissions from Ms Chrysanthou, on behalf of the Country Women's Association, and from Mrs Collier, who appears for herself, in respect of the orders sought. 2. Dealing first with discovery, it appears Mrs Collier may have been labouring under a misapprehension as to what was sought. In fairness, it may be observed that the discovery order made on 12 August 2016 referred to "the categories sought on 5 August 2016" (which numbered three). However, as made plain during argument on 12 August 2016, the only category I allowed was the first of those three categories. Further, that category was narrowed during argument both as to date and as to the scope of documents to be discovered. The category for discovery I allowed was as set out in order 1 sought today (set out at [4](1) above). 3. Mrs Collier has this morning repeated some of the submissions she made on 12 August 2016 in respect of the requirement to discover documents falling within that category. Amongst other submissions, she has contended that there should be no need for her to give discovery of any such communications, since all of the relevant communications for the purpose of these proceedings are annexed to a lengthy affidavit she has filed and served in the proceedings. Separately, Mrs Collier has contended that, if the defendant is aware of any additional communications, then there is no need for them to be discovered. 4. Each of those contentions was considered and determined on 12 August 2016. I remain satisfied that it is appropriate, having regard to the issues in these proceedings, for Mrs Collier to be required to disclose documents falling within the single category set out above. To the extent that the formulation of the order made 12 August 2016 was unclear in that respect, the task in question is made plain by the form of order sought today by the defendant, set out above. 5. Turning to interrogatories, on 19 August 2016 the plaintiff served answers to the interrogatories I had allowed. The defendant has identified particular answers which it contends are inadequate. 6. The defendant's complaints fall broadly into two categories. First, as to a number of interrogatories, Mrs Collier's answer is in the following terms: "This is irrelevant for the proceedings of defamation by the defendant against the plaintiff." I apprehend the answers in those terms to amount to a contention that the relevant interrogatory does not relate to any issue in the proceedings. That issue was determined on 12 August 2016 when I directed the plaintiff to answer the interrogatories proposed by the defendant. The interrogatories were formulated by Ms Chrysanthou by working sequentially through the particulars of truth in support of the truth defence pleaded by the defendant. In respect of each particular, a question was formulated the answer to which it was thought would serve the purpose of interrogatories. 7. I was satisfied on 12 August 2016 that each of the interrogatories was "necessary" in the sense in which that term is used in r 22.1(4) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) and in the Defamation List Practice Note. 8. I have today again considered each interrogatory and heard Mrs Collier's objections to them. I remain satisfied that each is relevant to an issue in the proceedings and appropriate for answer by Mrs Collier. 9. As to the complaint in the category that some answers are unresponsive, I have considered each answer separately. Ms Chrysanthou identified a list of answers which she submitted are unresponsive. As to a number of those, I am not persuaded that there is any inadequacy in Mrs Collier's answer. That determination relates in particular to the answers to interrogatories 56 to 57, 60 to 61, 69, 70 and 71. 10. As to the remaining complaints made by the defendant today, I am satisfied that Mrs Collier's answers are unresponsive and that she should be afforded further time to provide proper answers to those questions. That ruling relates to interrogatories 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 64, 65, 66, 67 and 68. 11. Separately, Mrs Collier has asked for more time than contemplated in the short minutes of order proposed by the defendant. Although there is not formally before the Court any evidence to support this, I accept what Mrs Collier says on the subject of her health, namely, that in her present circumstances, she would have some difficulty complying with the orders of the Court in the time proposed. I propose on that basis to allow a longer period. 12. [Discussion as to costs] 13. The defendant, having been successful in obtaining the orders sought today, seeks an order for its costs. Mrs Collier opposes the making of that order, principally by rehearsing the submissions already put. In making the orders sought, I have rejected those submissions. I am satisfied that costs should follow the event. The appropriate order is that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the argument today. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 19 April 2017