Chapter 30 - Interrogatories

Question 1

INTERROGATORIES

Overview

Answer 1

1) General principles
2) Discovery by interrogatories
3) Issues in interrogatories

Question 2

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERROGATORIES

Overview

Answer 2

1) Meaning of interrogatories
2) Question for interrogatories
3) Object of interrogatories
4) Scope of interrogatories

Question 3

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERROGATORIES

Meaning of interrogatories

Answer 3

Mahon v Osborne:

• ‘Interrogatories’ are questions answerable on oath which a party may, with the leave of the court, serve on his opponent.
• Answering interrogatories is just another form of discovery and is sometimes called ‘discovery of facts.’
• The answers are given by affidavit;
• if the party interrogated omits to answer some of the questions or gives insufficient answers the court may order a further answer to be given either by affidavit or by oral examination.
• The interrogatories proposed must be relevant to the action, may relate to any matter which go to support the interrogator’s case or to impeach or destroy his opponent’s case.

Question 4

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERROGATORIES

Question for interrogatories

Answer 4

Norman Wright & Anor v Oversea Chinese Banking Corp Ltd & Anor:

• Questions for interrogatories must relate to a matter in issue between the parties.

Question 5

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERROGATORIES

Object of interrogatories

Answer 5

General:

• To allow party who interrogates to attempt to obtain admission from his opponent.
• To make the burden of proof easier.
• To elicit admissions which is normally supplied by a notice to admit facts under O.27:

Examples:

1) Admissions - Sheik Abdullah v Kang Kok Seng:
- Interrogatories can be used to seek for admissions.
2) Proving own case & attack opponent’s case - Hennessy v Wright:
- Interrogatories can extend to prove applicant’s own case and attack opponent’s case.

Question 6

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERROGATORIES

Scope of interrogatories

Answer 6

Sheik Abdullah v Kang Kok Seng:

Interrogatories must:

• Relate to a specific matter in question between parties;
• Fishing interrogatories, i.e. not related to a matter in question in the cause of action or as pleaded; or
• To establish a cause of action; or
• To obtain evidence; ARE NOT ALLOWED.

Question 7

DISCOVERY BY INTERROGATORIES

Overview

Answer 7

1) Without leave of court
2) With leave of court
3) Exercise of discretion
4) Leave to serve
5) Witness that will be present at trial
6) Answering interrogatories

Question 8

DISCOVERY BY INTERROGATORIES

Without leave of court

Answer 8

O.26, r.2

• When:
• How:

Question 9

DISCOVERY BY INTERROGATORIES

With leave of court

Answer 9

1) The law: O.26, r.1
2) Procedures: O.26, r.1

How: 
Form: 
Service: 
Order: 
Answering interrogatories:

Question 10

DISCOVERY BY INTERROGATORIES

Exercise of discretion

Answer 10

O.26, r.1(3):

• Court may order interrogatories only if it considers necessary.
• Exercise of discretion to order for interrogatories are based upon:

1) Is the question relevant?
2) Would it help the applicant or has he to call a witness to establish the fact?
3) Has the question been framed clearly and precisely that the opponent can be expected to give a straight answer?
4) Is it reasonable to deal with the point in this way, there having been discovery of documents and witnesses may be needed at the trial or could it be more convenient to ask for particulars or serve a notice to admit facts?

Question 11

DISCOVERY BY INTERROGATORIES

Leave to serve

Answer 11

Pertubohan Berita Nasional Malaysia v Stephen Kalong Ningkan:

• the court will only grant leave to serve if;

1) it considers necessary for either disposing fairly the action;
2) or for saving costs.

Question 12

DISCOVERY BY INTERROGATORIES

Witness that will be present at trial

Answer 12

Ramsey v Ramsey:

• No interrogatory to obtain admission of that fact is necessary if the witness will be called in any event at the trial to prove a fact.

Question 13

DISCOVERY BY INTERROGATORIES

Answering interrogatories

Answer 13

O.26, r.1(6):

• By affidavit in Form 47.

Question 14

ISSUES IN INTERROGATORIES

Overview

Answer 14

1) insufficient answers
2) inconsistent answers
3) objections to answer
4) the use of interrogatories as evidence at trial

Question 15

ISSUES IN INTERROGATORIES

insufficient answers

Answer 15

1) The law:
- O.26, r.6
2) Court order - O.26, r.6(1):

• Application should make clear precisely why it is alleged that the answer is unsatisfactory.
• Court is not concerned with the truth of the original answer but with its sufficiency.
• Oral examination ordered only in special circumstances.

3) FBP: O.26, r.6(2)
- Party may ask for further & better particulars.

Question 16

ISSUES IN INTERROGATORIES

inconsistent answers

Answer 16

Phillip Hoalim v Amalgamated Theatre Limited:

• inherent jurisdiction to struck out answers for being inconsistent exists.

Question 17

ISSUES IN INTERROGATORIES

objections to answer

Answer 17

1) Grounds of privilege - O.26, r.5:
- Objection on this ground may be taken in affidavit.
2) Other grounds:

• Not relevant
• Not necessary
• “Fishing”
• Evidence, not facts
• Opinion, not facts
• Oppressive: too many, vague, scandalous
  Premature:

Question 18

ISSUES IN INTERROGATORIES

the use of interrogatories as evidence at trial

Answer 18

1) The law:
- O.26, r.8
2) By court order - Phillip Hoalim v Amalgamated Theatre Limited:

• Court may also order oppressive documents or interrogatives or parts thereof are struck-off.
• It is the duty of the court to see that its files are not made the instrument of oppression.

3) Endeavour Wines Ltd v Martin & Martin:
- Court may look at the whole of the answers or any answer or other part of the answer.