Tong v Kayuken Pacific Ltd [1990] SBHC 7; HC-CC 044 of 1989 (2 March 1990)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 44 of 1989

SUNNY WUNSAN TONG

-v-

KAYUKEN PACIFIC LTD and KONG MING KHOO

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Ward C.J.)

Hearing: 23 February 1990
Ruling: 2 March 1990

J. Corrin for the Plaintiff
G. Young for the First and Second Defendants

WARD CJ: The parties have delivered interrogatories and answers pursuant to a consent order. Each party has declined to answer some of the interrogatories and they now both seek an order from the court that the answers be given under O.33 r.9.

The general rules in relation to interrogatories are set out in O.33. They must relate to the matter in question and if they do not will be deemed irrelevant even if admissible in cross examination, (rule 1). They are allowed only where necessary to dispose fairly of the case or to save costs (rule 2) and they need not be answered if they are scandalous or irrelevant or not bona fide for the matter inquired into or are not sufficiently material at that stage (rule 6).

Relevance has been interpreted very widely and generally questions may relate to any matters which go to maintain the interrogator's case or to destroy the case of his adversary. Hennessy v. Wright (No.2) (1888) cited as a footnote to Parnell v. Walter [1890] UKLawRpKQB 3; (1890) 24 QBD 441 @ 445.

However, the relevance must be to the case of the party interrogating. In Kennedy v. Dodson [1895] UKLawRpCh 6; (1895) 1 Ch. 334 @ 341, Smith LJ explained -

"In my opinion, the legitimate use, and the only legitimate use, of interrogatories is to obtain from the party interrogated admissions of facts which it is necessary for the party interrogating to prove in order to establish his case; and if the party interrogating goes further, and seeks by his interrogatories to get from the other party matters which it is not incumbent on him to prove, although such matters may indirectly assist his case, the interrogatories ought not to be admitted."

It is also relevant to bear in mind the words of Jessel MR in Attorney General v. Gaskill [1882] UKLawRpCh 59; (1882) 20 Ch D 519 @ 528:

"Now, one of the great objects of interrogatories when properly administered has always been to save evidence, that is to diminish the burden of proof which was otherwise on the Plaintiff. Their object is not merely to discover facts which will inform the Plain-tiff as to evidence to be obtained, but also to save the expense of proving a part of the case."

The principles enunciated in these cases still accurately express the position.

Applying these principles to the present case I consider questions 1 and 2 of the defendants' interrogatories as properly posed in order for the defendant to ascertain the case he must answer.

Questions 3 and 4 have, I feel, been sufficiently dealt with in the plaintiff's pleadings.

Questions 1, 2 and 3 of the plaintiff's interrogatories are widely drawn but are sufficiently relevant to the plaintiff's case to warrant an answer.

Questions 11, 16, 17 and 18 are matters that the plaintiff is entitled to ask in order to ascertain the matters that need to be proved.

Questions 12 and 13 are in effect fishing and need not be answered.

Thus the plaintiff must answer questions 1 and 2 of the defendants' interrogatories and the defendants must answer questions 1, 2, 3, 11, 16, 17 and 18.

All answers must be by affidavit within 14 days.

Each party to bear its own costs.

(F.G.R. Ward)
CHIEF JUSTICE