Sunny Wunsan Tong v Kayuken Pacific Ltd and Kong Ming Khoo [1990] SBHC 74; [1990] SILR 4 (2 March 1990)

[1990] SILR 4

IN THE 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 CJ
Civil Case No. 44 of 1989

Hearing: 23 February 1990
Ruling: 2 March 1990

Interrogatories - answers not necessary if they are scandalous, irrelevant, not bona fide etc - Order 33 rule 9.

Facts:

By consent order, the parties delivered interrogatories. Both parties answered some interrogatories delivered, but declined to answer others. Both parties then sought orders from the court for answers to be given under O.33 r.9.

Held:

1. Interrogatories must be answered if they related to the matter in question but not if they were scandalous, irrelevant, not bona fide or not sufficiently material at that stage of the case.

2. The Plaintiff must answer questions 1 and 2 of the Defendant’s interrogatories and the Defendant must answer questions 1, 2, 3, 11, 16, 17 and 18 of the Plaintiff’s interrogatories.

Cases referred to:

Hennessy v Wright (No2) (1888) 57 LJQB 594

Parnell v Walter [1890] UKLawRpKQB 3; (1890) 24 QBD 441 at 445

Kennedy v Dodson [1895] UKLawRpCh 6; [1895] 1 Ch 334 at 341

Attorney General v Gaskill [1882] UKLawRpCh 59; (1882) 20 Ch D 519 at 528

Legislation referred to:

High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1964, O. 33 r. 9

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 at 445.)

However, the relevance must be to the case of the party interrogating. In Kennedy v. Dodson [1895] UKLawRpCh 6; (1895) 1 Ch. 334 at 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 at 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 Plaintiff 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.