Where to start with an Australian legal problem: plain-English guides, with the legislation and case law behind them.

Platform

Legislation
Cases
Guides
Find a lawyer
Absurdities
Ask Zoe
Graph
Recently analysed

Free tools

Bond claim checker
Barking dog and noise diary
Support at Home statement check
All tools

Lawyers: our picks

Zoe

Where to start with an Australian legal problem: plain-English guides, with the legislation and case law behind them.

Platform

Legislation
Cases
Guides
Find a lawyer
Absurdities
Ask Zoe
Graph
Recently analysed

Free tools

Bond claim checker
Barking dog and noise diary
Support at Home statement check
All tools

Lawyers: our picks

Lawyers in Sydney
Lawyers in Melbourne
Lawyers in Brisbane
Lawyers in Perth
Family lawyers
Employment lawyers
Criminal lawyers
Wills and estates lawyers
Find a lawyer

Company

Pricing
API
Privacy
Terms
Support
X
LinkedIn
Instagram

Jurisdictions

Commonwealth
New South Wales
Queensland
Victoria
Western Australia
South Australia
Tasmania
Australian Capital Territory
Northern Territory

Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.

1. This is a second application by the plaintiffs for leave to issue... [2018] WASC 133 | Case summary | Zoe

Zoe

Legislation Cases Guides Find a lawyer Absurdities Ask Zoe Graph Pricing

Ask Zoe →

Home/Cases/[2018] WASC 133

WAWASC

1. This is a second application by the plaintiffs for leave to issue interrogatories pursuant to O 27 r 1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (RSC). The first application was dismissed: Girgis v Poliwka

[2018] WASC 133

Supreme Court of WA|2018-05-03|Before: Derrick J

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Supreme Court of WA

Decision date

2018-05-03

Before

Derrick J

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Judgment (2 paragraphs)

[1]

For the reasons I have stated the application is refused.

[2]

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

Parties

Applicant/Plaintiff:

1. This is a second application by the plaintiffs for leave to issue interrogatories pursuant to O 27 r 1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (RSC). The first application was dismissed: Girgis

Respondent/Defendant:

Poliwka

Cases Cited (2)

This is a second application by the plaintiffs for leave to issue interrogatories pursuant to O 27 r 1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (RSC). The first application was dismissed: Girgis v Poliwka [2015] WASC 446. An appeal from the decision dismissing the first application was also dismissed: Girgis v Poliwka [2016] WASCA 158.
The present application first came before BanksSmith J on 18 January 2017. The minute of proposed interrogatories that was before her Honour is the minute that is before me. BanksSmith J adjourned the application pending the exchange of witness statements. Her Honour did so on the basis that the exchange of witness statements might elucidate the evidence as to the pleaded issues and hence might remove the need for interrogatories: Girgis v Poliwka [No 2] [2017] WASC 9 [12].
Witness statements have now been exchanged by the parties. In light of the witness statements the parties have conferred on the minute of proposed interrogatories. However, they have been unable to reach agreement as to whether leave should be granted for the plaintiffs to administer the proposed interrogatories.

(1911) 13 CLR 101