Zhang v Popovic

The law in relation to interrogatories

1. Sections 22.1 and 22.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) ("UCPR") relevantly read: "22.1 Interrogatories (1) At any stage of the proceedings, the court may order any party to answer specified interrogatories. (2) An application for such an order must be accompanied by a copy of the proposed interrogatories. (3) In the case of proceedings on: (a) a claim for damages arising out of the death of, or bodily injury to, any person, or (b) a claim for contribution in relation to damages so arising, such an order is not to be made unless the court is satisfied that special reasons exist that justify the making of the order. (4) In any case, such an order is not to be made unless the court is satisfied that the order is necessary at the time it is made. (5) An order to answer interrogatories: (a) may require the answers to be given within a specified time, and (b) may require the answers, or any of them, to be verified by affidavit, and (c) the party to whom the order is addressed to make the relevant affidavit, may specify the person to make the affidavit, or the persons from whom the person to make the affidavit may be chosen, in relation to the interrogatories or any of them. 22.2 Objections to specific interrogatories A party may not object to being ordered to answer an interrogatory except on the following grounds: … (b) the interrogatory is vexatious or oppressive, …"
2. ROC Services objects to an order for interrogatories being made against it on the basis that the plaintiff has not shown special reasons or necessity. Further, ROC Services has specific objections to answering all questions except 18(a) and 18(c).

Special reasons

1. UCPR 22.1(3)(b) requires the court to be satisfied that special reasons exist justifying the making of the order in the case of proceedings involving a claim for damages arising out of bodily injury to a person. As the party seeking an order for interrogatories, the onus of establishing the existence of special reasons and necessity rests on the plaintiff: see O'Meara v Dr Arianayagam [2006] NSWSC 797 at [2].
2. In Haywood v Collaroy Services Beach Club [2005] NSWSC 1203, Rothman J set out the special reasons that justified making the order for interrogatories (at [15]): "[15] The issues, upon which questions are sought, like the earlier interrogatories: a. Are concerned with subjects that, as between the parties, are largely or peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant; b. Involve complex questions going to the relationship (legal and otherwise) between the defendant and third parties; c. Would, for the plaintiff, otherwise be very difficult or impossible to prove or would be such that probative evidence on such issues would be difficult or impossible to obtain."
3. In Priest v State of NSW [2006] NSWSC 12, Johnson J (at [127]-[128]) stated: "[127] The creation of the "special reasons" test in Part 23 r 5 SCR in 1996 strengthened what was always a prima facie prohibition upon discovery in claims for personal injury: Haywood v Collaroy Services Beach Club Limited [2003] NSWSC 43 at paragraph 15. The rule represents an intention that discovery in personal injury cases will be rare, and will be ordered only where special reasons are made out: Haywood at paragraph 20. [128] Not surprisingly, there is no definition of "special reasons" in the SCR (or UCPR). The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines "special" as meaning "of such a kind as to exceed in some way that which is usual or common" and also "exceptional in character, quality or degree." The application of Pt 23 r 5 SCR (Pt 21.8 UCPR) should be approached giving to "special reasons" the meaning that expression would ordinarily convey in common English usage, whilst having particular regard to the statutory setting in which the language is used: B v Gould (1993) 67 A Crim R 297 at 300. The core of the requirement for "special reasons" is that there be something unusual or different to take the matter the subject of the discretion out of the ordinary course: Boscolo v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1999) 90 FCR 531 at 535-6 (paragraph 18); Binks v North Sydney Council [2001] NSWSC 27 at paragraphs 9-10."
4. In Ahmed El Hayek v Josslyn Vasic & Anor; QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited v Wesfarmers Federation Insurance Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1498, Garling J (at [49] - [51]) said of the requirement for special reasons: "[49] The requirement for special reasons to be established is a restrictive one. It is intended to act as a limitation on the circumstances in which an order will be made. [50] Whilst it is clear that "special reasons", as a phrase, is an inexact one, capable of some elasticity in interpretation: see Keating v South East Sydney Illawarra Area Health Service (Supreme Court of NSW, 7 July 2006 unreported) at [24]-[25] per Hall J, it is necessary for an applicant for an order to show that there is something unusual or different which takes the matter out of the ordinary course: Priest v State of New South Wales [2006] NSWSC 12 at [126]-[128] per Johnson J; Keating at [24]; Boscolo at [18] per French J (as his Honour then was). [51] Typically, but not exclusively, what will take the matter "out of the ordinary" is: (a) an inability to obtain the requisite factual material without the exercise of the discretion; (b) that the applicant is in a position of some disability or disadvantage; (c) the complexity of the subject matter is such that without the exercise of the discretion, real prejudice will result to the applicant; (d) that in order to achieve the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings, the discretion should be exercised."
5. Finally, in Cavric v Coopers & Lybrand (ACT) Ltd [2002] NSWSC 538, I stated (at [13]): "[13] "Special" can be said to be exceptional, has a distinct, individual or instrumental character. "Special" indicates to the decision maker that the discretion is one which is not lightly enlivened. However "special reasons" is an elastic instruction suitable for application across a range of situations."

Necessity

1. UCPR 22.1(4) requires that a Court must be satisfied that an order to answer interrogatories is "necessary at the time it is made".
2. The necessity requirement is to be approached as meaning "reasonably necessary for the disposing fairly of the cause or matter" or "necessary in the interests of a fair trial": Boyle v Downs [1979] 1 NSWLR 192 at 205 per Cross J.
3. In Chong v Nguyen [2005] NSWSC 588, Rothman J explained (at [16]) the necessity requirement as follows: "[16] The word "necessary" when used in relation to a requirement on the exercise of a power granted to a Court should generally and does here mean "reasonably required or legally ancillary " to the achievement of the goal, in this case, of a fair trial. I refer to the joint judgment of Gaudron, Gummow and Callinan JJ in Pelechowski v Registrar, Court of Appeal (1999) 198 CLR 435 which, while determining whether there was a valid basis for contempt proceedings, examined the power of the District Court to issue injunctive relief. They said: 'The term "necessary" in such a setting as this is to be understood in the sense given it by Pollock CB in Attorney-General v Walker (1849) 3 Ex 242, namely as identifying a power to make orders which are reasonably required or legally ancillary to the accomplishment of the specific remedies for enforcement provided in Division 4 of Part 3 of the District Court Act. In this setting, the term "necessary" does not have the meaning of "essential"; rather it is to be "subjected to the touchstone of reasonableness" (State Drug Crime Commission (NSW) v Chapman (1987) 12 NSWLR 477 at 452).'"

The interrogatories

1. Below is a summary of the interrogatories administered by the plaintiff to ROC Services.
2. In the interrogatories, the trailer is defined as the trailer, registered number NT66DD, which was involved in the plaintiff's accident on 16 September 2007. Reference to Calabro, Interfreight and ROC Services and to any corporation includes reference to their servants, contractors and agents.
3. Interrogatories 1 to 6A concern matters relating to the work carried out by ROC Services on the trailer and the records relating to that work. ROC Services submits that the interrogatories seek admissions on matters which are already the subject of formal admission (most, if not all, matters covered by interrogatory 1) or which are addressed in the lay witness statements and expert reports served by ROC Services.
4. Interrogatories 7 to 9 concern matters relating to whether ROC Services required Interfreight to obtain the opinion of an engineer as to how the components of the hydraulic system should be configured on the trailer before undertaking work on the trailer, and if such an opinion was not obtained, the reason(s) why it was not obtained. Counsel for ROC Services conceded that if an engineer's report was in existence, it was caught by the schedule in the subpoena. No engineer's report has been produced (Aff. Hackett 18/5/15).
5. Interrogatories 10 to 12 concern matters relating to whether ROC Services obtained the opinion of an engineer as to how the components of the hydraulic system should be configured upon the trailer before undertaking the work on the trailer, and if such an opinion was not obtained, the reason(s) why it was not obtained.
6. Interrogatories 13 to 14A concern matters relating to whether the work undertaken by ROC Services on the trailer included the installation of "metal support bases".
7. Interrogatories 15 to 17 require ROC Services to examine and construe photographs of the trailer taken after the accident. Counsel for ROC Services submitted that the provenance of such photographs have not been proved by the plaintiff. However, those photographs form part of the WorkCover file.
8. Interrogatory 18 concerns ROC Services handwritten job sheets relating to the work undertaken by it on the trailer in 2006 and requires ROC Services to interpret various notations set out in the job sheets. (I have examined the job sheets. For them to be properly understood, it is my view that further explanation is required.)

Submissions

1. Senior counsel for the plaintiff submitted that special reasons exist to justify making the order and that the order is necessary for the following reasons: (a) The plaintiff knows nothing about the history of the trailer and the ramps. (b) The Police and the WorkCover material is useful as far as it goes but it does not go nearly far enough for the obvious reason that the WorkCover Authority and Police were concerned with the immediate event not the history of the equipment. (c) The plaintiff would have liked to interrogate earlier but evidence was coming on belatedly and in breach of the Court ordered timetable. The plaintiff's expert Mr Gillies had wanted to wait until it was all in to prepare a final report, which the plaintiff needed to frame the interrogatories. (d) It should be easy for the interrogatories to be answered quickly because they are all based on or flow from the evidence put on by the defendants in witness statements or the seventh defendant's expert, Dr Casey's report. The interrogatories confirm relevant parts of that evidence and go to the logical gaps in it, that is, was expert advice taken in relation to the installation of the hydraulic system for the raising and lowering of the ramps on the trailer involved in the plaintiff's accident. (e) It is no answer that the evidence sought by the interrogatories may be available otherwise: Lyell v Kennedy (1883) App Cas 217 at 228. It is convenient for the Court as well as the parties to have the lay evidence adduced shortened by the tender of the interrogatories. Such a course also avoids the forensic disadvantage to the innocent plaintiff of having to call witnesses who are in effect opposing parties. (f) There is no certainty from the plaintiff's point of view that all the evidence is otherwise available. Because the plaintiff was told that that would be argued in opposition to the motion, he has followed the proposed interrogatories with notices to admit facts and authenticity of documents but they cannot go as far as the interrogatories and there is no real penalty to a defendant where the defendant elects to "not admit".
2. ROC Services submitted that the plaintiff has not demonstrated the existence of special reasons that justify the making of an order for interrogatories for the following reasons: (1) The plaintiff is not in a position akin to a plaintiff who is under a legal disability, nor is he in the position of a plaintiff who has no knowledge of, or means of obtaining knowledge, about the facts, matters and circumstances relevant to the issues in the proceedings. (2) The interrogatories principally concern matters which have been addressed in two affidavits served by the first, second, third and fourth defendant, and five witness statements served by the seventh defendant. 1. (3) The affidavits and witness statements were served pursuant to case management orders of the Court. If the deponents of the affidavits and the makers of the statements are called by the parties that served them, the affidavits and statements will stand as the evidence in chief of those witnesses in accordance with UCPR 31.4(5)(a). (4) The possibility that the deponents of the affidavits and the makers of the statements might not be called by the parties that served them does not establish the existence of "special reasons" or place the plaintiff at any disadvantage. It would be open for the plaintiff to call as part of his case the deponents of the affidavits and the makers of the statements and to, if necessary, make an application pursuant to s 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). (5) The interrogatories do little more than to seek admissions on matters, in advance of the hearing, which are capable of proof by other means, such as by cross examining witnesses at the hearing. To the extent that the plaintiff does not presently have evidence which may be given in cross examination puts the plaintiff in no different position from any other party to proceedings of this kind and does not of itself constitute "special reasons".
3. Counsel for ROC Services also submitted that answers to the interrogatories are not presently necessary as they principally concern matters which are not peculiarly within the knowledge of ROC Services and its employees and concern matters that are capable of being proven by a witness or witnesses likely to be called at hearing.

Evidentiary statements

1. The first to fourth defendants have served the statements of John Tubuso sworn 14 March 2014 and Peter Sanchez sworn 27 March 2014. ROC Services has served statements of Nabil Fahmy dated 22 October 2014, Adrian Hall dated 22 October 2014 and 25 February 2015, Dion Matsaniotis dated 26 November 2015, Robert Cox dated 24 February 2015 and an unsigned and undated statement of John Tichonzuk. I will briefly refer to them.

Mr John Tabuso

1. At the time of the accident, John Tabuso was employed as a transport logistics manager with Interfreight He is a qualified motor mechanic and provided a statement dated 14 March 2014. His evidence is that in late June or early July 2006 he arranged for ROC Services to supply and fit a fully automatic hydraulic system to raise and lower the left hand rear ramp and the right hand rear ramp of the trailer.
2. On or about 25 August 2006, the trailer was returned to ROC Services' premises. Mr Tabuso inspected the trailer. He made the following observations: "The bottom end of the left hand hydraulic ramp was attached to the lower trailer body by a welded bracket, that is, a bracket newly welded onto the ramp and secured by a locking pin. The upper part of the left hand hydraulic ramp was attached to the ramp by a welded bracket and secured by a locking pin, that is, a bracket newly welded onto the ramp. The bottom end of the right hand hydraulic ramp was attached to the lower trailer body by a welded bracket, that is, a bracket newly welded onto the ramp and secured by a locking pin. The upper part of the right hand hydraulic ram was attached to the ramp by a welded bracket and secured by a locking pin, that is, a bracket newly welded onto the ramp." (Aff [19 (d) and (e)]).
3. He deposed that ROC Hydraulics had welded the bracket, one to the left hand rear ramp and one to the right hand rear ramp. (Aff, [19 (g)]).

Mr John Sanchez

1. At the time of the accident, Mr John Sanchez was working as a director of Hoxton Park Truck and Trailer Repairs (in liq). He is a licenced motor mechanic who holds auto electrical and welding qualifications. His statement is dated 27 March 2014. In 2006, he was involved in the regular servicing of Interfreight's fleet. Between 20 May 2006 and 28 June 2006 he made the new ramps and prepared to fit them to the trailer body. The ramps were fitted to the trailer body by the hinge mechanism only.
2. On 15 May 2006, Mr Tabuso approached Mr Sanchez and directed him to design and make new ramps for the trailer. In early July 2006, after Mr Sanchez had made the ramps, Mr Tabuso asked him to take the trailer over to ROC Services at Wetherill Park to get a full hydraulic set up installed to raise and lower the left hand and right hand rear ramps. Mr Sanchez then hitched the trailer up to a prime mover and drove the trailer to ROC Services. Prior to leaving, Mr Sanchez collected two used hydraulic rams from his business' workshop and placed them in the trailer for ROC Services to determine if they could be attached to the trailer.
3. On the day of transporting the trailer to ROC Services, Mr Sanchez deposed that there were no brackets welded to the left hand rear ramp or the right hand rear ramp of the trailer for a hydraulic mechanism and there were no hydraulic rams attached to the ramps or to anywhere else on the trailer. Mr Sanchez deposed that he did not carry out any further work to the trailer following the manufacture and attachment of the ramps to the trailer body. He is not aware of anyone else carrying out any work to the ramps prior to when he delivered the trailer with the ramps to ROC Services. When he arrived at ROC Services' premises, he indicated to the person at the office that there were a set of used rams in the trailer and directed them to check whether they could be installed.
4. Mr Sanchez deposed that he did not carry out any welding to the trailer other than what was required to manufacture the ramps and to attach them to the trailer body. There was no welding of any bracket required to be attached to either of the ramps for their manufacture or their attachment to the trailer body.
5. On or about 4 September 2006, Mr Sanchez observed that a fully automatic hydraulic lifting system including one hydraulic ram on the left hand rear and one hydraulic ram on the right hand rear had been installed on the trailer. The hydraulic rams were not the hydraulic rams he had left in the trailer.
6. Brackets had been welded to the lower left and right of the rear of the trailer, respectively securing the left and right hand hydraulic rams to the trailer body. Brackets had also been welded to the left and right hand rear ramps, respectively securing both ramps to the left and right hand rear hydraulic rams.
7. None of the welded brackets referred to above were welded by Mr Sanchez or under his instruction. He deposed that he did not know who carried out those welds but he can say that the brackets were not attached to the ramps when he delivered the trailer to ROC Services in July 2006 and they were attached when he next saw the trailer and ramps on 4 September 2006. The hydraulic rams were connected to the welded brackets at that time. (Statement [5]-[23]).
8. In summary, Interfreight's position is that it did carry out work on the trailer but did not weld the brackets to the ramps and body of the trailer. The brackets were not attached to the trailer or ramps when Mr Sanchez delivered the trailer to ROC Services in July 2006 but were attached after they had installed the hydraulic system and were observed by Mr Sanchez upon inspection when he came to collect the trailer in September 2006.

Mr Nabil Fahmy

1. Mr Nabil Fahmy is a director of ROC Services and a licenced motor mechanic. His statement is dated 22 October 2014. In his statement he deposes that he examined the original job card, job sheets, sales orders, handwritten job cards and tax invoice and noted the absence of any reference to manufacturing mounts or making mounts. This led him to conclude that ROC Services did not supply or attach the metal mounting points to the trailer when it installed the hydraulic system on the trailer. Mr Fahmy deposed that had ROC Services been responsible, he would have expected the job description and other records to include a reference such as "manufacturing mounts" in the job description and other records. An additional fee would also have been charged for this work.
2. Mr Fahmy stated that there is nothing in ROC Services' original records to indicate that ROC Services supplied and welded reinforcing steel, which would have been recorded if ROC Services had done the work. Mr Fahmy deposed that it would be highly unusual for ROC Services to weld lugs/brackets in place when installing hydraulic cylinders as this is something they did less than once each year. Usually they would only undertake such welding work in situations where the original lugs were damaged and could not be reused or if the exact cylinder being replaced could not be found and a different model with a different size mounting bracket was used. He says that there is no evidence to suggest that either of these two factors were in play on this occasion. (Statement [10], [12] and [16]).

Mr Adrian Hall

1. Mr Adrian Hall was a partner of ROC Services with Mr Fahmy. His statement is undated. His primary role at ROC Services was to oversee the operations of the business' workshop, while Mr Fahmy was primarily responsible for the business' financial operations.
2. After he reviewed the relevant documents, Mr Hall noted that there was no reference in the documents to the installation of a mount/lug. He deposed that it is his view that ROC Services did not carry out this work and that if ROC Services had carried out this work, he would have created a drawing of the mounts and a record of an order for the corresponding type of steel at or around the relevant time would exist. He had no recollection of taking springs off a spring-operated trailer, which is a feature of the work that had to have been carried out on the trailer. He deposed that replacing and welding the mounts to the trailer was not the type of work ROC Services carried out and the fact that it did not occur was supported by the available documents. (Statement [8]-[20]).
3. In Mr Hall's supplementary report dated 25 February 2015 he noted that the trailer was defected on two occasions after ROC Services installed the hydraulic system and one of these notices was issued before the date of Mr Zhang's injury. He observed that when the trailer received these defect notices, the ramps had been removed in order to repair the trailer and fit the gear. He noted that inconsistent repairs appeared to have been done to different sides of the trailer and repairs had been carried out on more than one occasion. (Supplementary statement [2]-[4]).

Mr Dion Matsrotis

1. Mr Dion Matsrotis was employed by ROC Services as a third year apprentice hydraulic fitter and provided a statement dated 26 November 2014. He was responsible for replacing hydraulic rams on existing hydraulic systems, making hydraulic hoses, and replacing or repairing seals on hydraulic hoses. He has been provided with a copy of the records relating to work carried out on the trailer by ROC Services. He wrote the words, symbols and numbers which appear under the column headings "Part No.", "Serial No." and "No. Of" on the job sheets dated 15 August 2006. He did not write the words which appear in the first two rows of the tables on the job sheets. He noted that the records relating to work carried out on the trailer do not refer to the manufacture or installation of mounting brackets or lugs on the trailer. He deposed that if ROC performed this work then he would expect that the details of the conversion would be outlined in a design or drawing. (Statement [5]-[12]).

Mr Robert Cox

1. Robert Cox was employed by ROC Services as a hydraulic fitter between 2000 and 2014. He was responsible for installing and repairing hydraulic systems. He reviewed the relevant records and a photograph of the broken mounting bracket or lug. He has no recollection of performing work on the trailer and there is nothing in the records to suggest he did. He says that the records do not refer to the manufacture or installation of mounting brackets or lugs on the trailer. If ROC was responsible for manufacturing and installing the mounting brackets or lugs on the trailer, then he expected this would have been referred to somewhere in the records.
2. Mr Cox deposed that, as a general rule, ROC Services did not carry out structural work such as converting a spring loaded trailer ramp system to a hydraulic system, or manufacturing and installing mounting brackets or lugs for hydraulic systems. If a client ever approached him to perform this type of work during his employment at ROC Services he would have told them to take the trailer to a body builder to have the work done as ROC Services did not perform that kind of work. He does not recall ever manufacturing or installing a mounting bracket or lug like the one shown to him.
3. Mr Cox noted that the lower part of the mounting bracket or lug appeared to have been welded onto an existing bracket. The lower part of the mounting bracket or lug appeared to have been fabricated from 25mm bar stock. The parts referred to in the job sheets did not include 25mm metal bar stock. If ROC Services manufactured the mounting brackets or lugs then he would have expected the job sheets to refer to 25mm bar stock as the client would have been charged for the steel. This suggested to him that ROC Services did not manufacture the mounting brackets or lugs on the trailer.
4. Finally, it appeared to him that the mounting bracket or lug was welded in place using a stick welder. ROC Services did not have a stick welder in 2006 and only had MIG welders. He considered that it was therefore unlikely that ROC Services was responsible for welding the mounting bracket or lug onto the trailer. (Statement [3] to [12]).

Mr John Tichonzuk

1. Mr John Tichonzuk was employed by ROC Services between 1999 and 2007 as a service manager. His statement is undated. He deposed that he created the job card dated 15 August 2006 and wrote the following words: "Low Loader / STEP DECK - Supply fit Hydraulics for rear Ramps - with Honda Engine Rego NT-66DD (FEDRAL)".
2. He also created the job sheets dated 15 August 2006 and wrote the words which appear in the first two rows of the tables of the job sheets. He did not write the words, symbols or numbers which appear under the column headings "Part No.", "Serial No." and "No. Of". Mr Tichonzuk noted that the job card and job sheets do not refer to the manufacture or installation of mounting brackets or lugs on the trailer which hold the hydraulic cylinders. He deposed that if ROC Services had performed this work, he would have detailed it in the job description on the job card and an additional fee would have been charged for this labour, including a fee for the welding. While is now not able to recall the job without reference to the job card, the absence of any reference to the manufacture or installation of the mounting brackets or lugs suggests to him that ROC Services did not undertake this work on the trailer and that the trailer already had mounting brackets or lugs when it arrived at ROC Services in August 2006. (Statement [5] to [8]).
3. In summary, the plaintiff does not have any knowledge as to the modifications that have been carried out by Interfreight and ROC Services. Interfreight's position is that as at 28 June 2006, the ramps were fitted to the trailer body by the hinge mechanism only. But in August 2006, an employee of Interfreight observed both the left and right hand rams were attached to the ramps by welded brackets. In August 2006, an employee of ROC Services also observed that when went to undertake the modifications, the trailer already had mounting lugs or brackets on it. The modifications carried out by ROC Services are peculiarly within its knowledge. Similarly, the modifications carried out by Interfreight are peculiarly within its knowledge. While some explanation has been given as to who wrote up some of ROC Services' records, no real explanation of what those notations mean has been given in relation to the hydraulic rams on the trailer. While ROC Services admitted it carried out modifications to the trailer, its position is that it was unlikely that it was responsible for welding the mounting brackets or lugs onto the trailer.
4. Hence there is an evidentiary gap as to who carried out the welding of the brackets, one of which ultimately failed. Both Interfreight and ROC Services admit they did modification work on the trailer but assert that they did not weld the mounting brackets or lugs onto the trailer. I accept that at trial, the witnesses who have prepared statements can be cross examined by counsel for the plaintiff. However, without explanations of ROC Services' records it is very difficult for the plaintiff to prove who was more likely than not to have carried out the welding of the lugs. In my view, the plaintiff has established special reasons. The interrogatories have been administered at this time because the plaintiff needed to obtain the expert report of Dr Gillies in order to frame the interrogatories. Hence, these interrogatories were necessary and in the interests of a fair trial at the time they were sought. In my view the request for interrogatories satisfied the requirements set out in UCPR 22.1(3) and 22.1(4).
5. Counsel for ROC Services has made objections to specific interrogatories pursuant to UCPR 22.2, to which I now turn.

Specific objections

1. Other than interrogatories 8 and 9, the specific objections can be summarised as being made on the basis that they are oppressive in form, not necessary, unreasonable, not bona fide for the purpose of the action and constitute fishing. So far as interrogatories 1 to 6 are concerned, I have already explained that in my view it is necessary for explanations to be provided in relation to the records of ROC Services. Interrogatories 7 to 12 refer to whether or not an advice from an engineer was sought. As earlier outlined, counsel for ROC Services conceded that if an engineer's report was in existence it was caught by the schedule in the subpoena. No engineer's report has been produced.

Interrogatory 9

1. Interrogatory 9 reads: "If the answer to Interrogatory 7 is in the negative, did the Seventh Defendant not require the Third Defendant to furnish to it an opinion from an engineer as to how the task should be performed and how the components of the hydraulic system should be configured upon the trailer and ramps and/or a specification as to those matters because one or more of its servants or agents did not do so on its behalf? If so, please identify the servant(s) or agent(s) and say why they did not do so."
2. So far as interrogatory 9 is concerned, counsel for ROC Services submitted that they were impermissible as they asked questions directed to the corporate mind. Counsel referred to the decision of Patten J in O'Brien v Little [2007] NSWSC 64 where his Honour (at [20]) adopted the reasoning of Street J in Tooth & Co Ltd v Lane Cove Municipal Counsel (No 4) (1968) 2 NSWLR 17: "[20] There is a further principle which, in my opinion, is relevant to interrogatory 1. It is also relevant to a number of other interrogatories and flows from what Street J said in Tooth & Co Ltd v Lane Cove Municipal Council (No 4) (1968) 2 NSWLR 17 at p 19: "Interrogatory 19 is in the following terms: "What factors did the defendant take into account in defining the local area in respect of which the said local rate was paid and levied?" This interrogatory proceeds from the allegations in the statement of claim upon which issue is taken in the statement of defence, charging that the defendant took into account inadmissible considerations and failed to take into account relevant considerations in connexion with the passing of the resolution mentioned in para 5 of the statement of claim. I am of the view that the interrogatory should not be allowed. It is directed in its terms to ascertaining what may have been a particular mental process on the part of the defendant. The defendant, being a municipal corporation, has itself no mind. There are, of course, many occasions on which it is necessary to attribute to a municipal corporation attitudes of mind such as purpose, opinion, intention, and the like. These attitudes of mind are, however, fictional, in that they proceed upon the assumption, which is made in each instance that a municipal corporation has a mind. Where a suit raises as a relevant issue the state of mind of an individual, then a properly framed interrogatory directed to the ascertainment of ingredients in that state of mind would no doubt be allowed. Where, however, the suit concerns the act of a municipal corporation it appears to me to be unreal to direct to that corporation an interrogatory upon what matters were present to its mind in relation to a particular event. The inferences drawn and conclusions reached by courts upon purpose, intention or opinion on the part of municipal corporations are drawn and reached as a result of evidence of objective facts. But the fact that in those cases decisions are made that a municipal corporation had a particular mental state does not travel to the extent of raising the fiction that the corporation has in truth a mind, the processes of which can be examined through medium of interrogatories, as is the case with a personal party. Mr Mahoney has argued that in some circumstance a party can be regarded as vicariously having the mind of one of its servants. He points out that in such cases it is immaterial whether the party whose servant's mind is of relevance is a corporate party or an individual party. He has referred for example to the words of Denning L J in H L Boton (Engineering) Co Ltd V T J Graham & Sons, Ltd [1957] 1 QB 159 at pp 172-3. There is of course, no question but that where an agent of a party, be that party corporate or personal, within the scope of that agency does some act for the principal associated with a particular state of mind, then the agent's state of mind will be vicariously regarded as the state of mind of the principal. This is the concept to which Denning, L J refers at the pages mentioned. In the present case it does not seem to me that it is admissible to ask of the defendant corporation what factors it took into account upon the assumption that some servant or officer of the defendant applied his mind to the taking into account of factors so as to render his mental process vicariously the mental process of the defendant. Mr Mahoney also refers me to the company approach exemplified in the decision in Duke of Sutherland v British Dominions Land Settlement Corpn. Ltd, [1926] 1 CH 746. In that case interrogatories were directed to a company in respect of the state of mind of directors of the company in declining to register a transfer of shares. I see a real distinction between a case of that nature and an interrogatory such as is presently before me. The issue in the Duke of Sutherland's Case involved an article which gave power to the directors to decline to register a transfer. An interrogatory directed to the company and aimed at ascertaining the purposes of the directors seems to me to stand on a very different footing from an interrogatory such as is propounded in No 19. The interrogatory before me is aimed at the defendant corporation in respect of something which is to be assumed to have taken place in the mind of the corporation itself. This is not a case in which some subordinate officer of the corporation, acting within the scope of the duties of his office, formed an intention or took matters into account so as to render his mind vicariously the mind of the corporation. Nor is it a case such as the Duke of Sutherland's Case, supra, where it was the state of mind of the individual directors themselves which was the relevant matter for dispute."
3. Senior counsel for the plaintiff referred to Kelly v Raymor (Illawarra) Pty Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 720 where McLelland J stated: "There is one other matter referred to in Parkes Management Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Co (Master Cohen, 22 March, 1979 unreported) to which it is desirable to advert. The Master refers to the decision of Street J in Tooth & Co v Lane Cove Municipal Council (No 4) [1968] 2 NSWR 17, where it was held that interrogatories could not be directed to a corporation in terms inquiring as to the state of mind of the corporation because a corporation does not have a mind which can be investigated, notwithstanding that, by a legal fiction, attitudes of mind can be imputed to it. So much may be accepted, but it does not follow that an interrogatory may not be directed to a corporation in terms inquiring as to the actual state of mind of individuals, such as directors when they participated in a corporate act such as the adoption of a resolution, where the state of mind of those individuals is relevant to the validity of the corporate act, in proceedings where the validity of the corporate act is in issue and the state of mind of the individuals concerned is relevant to that issue. Indeed, I think the grounds on which Street J in Tooth & Co v Lane Cove Municipal Council (No 4) [1968] 2 NSWR 17, at p 20 distinguished the decision in Duke of Sutherland v British Dominions Land Settlement Corporation Ltd [1926] Ch 746 and the grounds of decision of both the last-mentioned case itself, and Berry v Tottenham Hotspur Football and Athletic Co Ltd [1935] Ch 718 (in each case based on specific provisions in the articles of association of the respective companies involved), provide indirect support for the view I have just expressed."
4. In my view, those involved in the modifications of the trailer have prepared witness statements and this interrogatory can be directed to them. I would allow it.
5. The balance of the interrogatories are not oppressive or unreasonable nor do they constitute fishing. In my view, they are necessary. Hence, I allow the interrogatories to be administered.
6. I make an order that leave is granted to the plaintiff to administer the interrogatories annexed to the end of this judgment and marked "A" to the seventh defendant. The seventh defendant is to answer these interrogatories with verification within 14 days. The Court orders that: (1) Leave is granted to the plaintiff to administer the interrogatories annexed to the end of this judgment and marked "A" to the seventh defendant. (2) The seventh defendant is to answer these interrogatories with verification within 14 days. (3) The seventh defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs on an ordinary basis as agreed or assessed. ANNEXURE "A" Interrogatories
7. In August 2006 did the seventh defendant supply and install upon the trailer a hydraulic system for the operation of the trailer's rear loading ramps pursuant to agreement with the Third Defendant for reward to the Seventh Defendant?
8. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, look at the document annexed hereto and marked "A" and say whether it is a copy of the tax invoice from the Seventh Defendant to the Third Defendant in respect of the supply and installation of the hydraulic system to the trailer.
9. If the answer to Interrogatory 1 hereof is in the affirmative, look at the document annexed hereto and marked "B" and say whether it is a copy of the Seventh Defendant's job card in respect of the work of supplying and installing the hydraulic system to the trailer.
10. If the answer to Interrogatory 1 hereof is in the affirmative, look at a two page document, each page of which is annexed hereto and marked "C" and say whether it is a copy of the seventh defendant's job sheets in respect of the work of supplying and installing the hydraulic system to the trailer
11. If the answer to Interrogatory 1 hereof is in the affirmative, look at a two page document, each page of which is annexed hereto and marked "D" and say whether it is a copy of the Seventh Defendant's job notes in respect of the work of supplying and installing the hydraulic system to the trailer.
12. If the answer to Interrogatory 1 hereof is in the affirmative, look at the two documents, each of which is annexed hereto and marked "E" on the letterhead of EZI Metal Wetherill Park and described as "Sales Order" and say whether they are invoices from EZI Metal Wetherill Park to the Seventh Defendant in respect of materials, not being mechanical or hydraulic parts, ordered and obtained by the Seventh Defendant for the work of supplying and installing the hydraulic system for the operation of the trailer's rear loading ramps. 6A. If the answer to Interrogatory 1 hereof is in the affirmative, as part of the installation of the hydraulic system for the operation of the trailer's rear loading ramps did the Seventh Defendant, through its servants and agents: (a) weld metal support lugs or clevis mounts on the left and right sides of the rear of the trailer to support the hydraulic cylinders or arms of the system; or (b) use metal lugs or clevis mounts already present on and protruding from the left and right rear sides of the trailer to support the hydraulic cylinders or arms of the system installed upon the trailer.
13. If the answer to Interrogatory 1 hereof is in the affirmative, before undertaking the work of supplying and installing the hydraulic system to the trailer did the Seventh Defendant through one or more servant or agent require the Third Defendant to furnish to it an opinion from an engineer as to how the task should be performed and how the components of the hydraulic system should be configured upon the trailer and ramps and/or a specification as to those matters? If so, please identify the servant(s) or agent(s) concerned.
14. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, please identify by name and address the engineer or person who furnished the opinion and/or specification and provide copies thereof or say where the same may be located.
15. If the answer to interrogatory 7 is in the negative, did the Seventh Defendant not require the Third Defendant to furnish to it an opinion from an engineer as to how the task should be performed and how the components of the hydraulic system should be configured upon the trailer and ramps and/or a specification as to those matters because one or more of its servants or agents did not do so on its behalf? If so, please identify the servant(s) or agent(s) and say why they did not do so.
16. If the answer to Interrogatory 7 hereof is in the affirmative, before undertaking the work of supplying and installing the hydraulic system, did the Seventh Defendant obtain an opinion from an engineer as to how the task should be performed and how the components of the hydraulic system should be configured upon the trailer and ramps and/or a specification as to those matters?
17. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, please identify by name and address the engineer or person who furnished the opinion and/or specification and provide copies thereof or say where the same may be located.
18. If the answer to the interrogatory 10 is in the negative, did the Seventh Defendant not obtain an opinion from an engineer as to how the task should be performed and how the components of the hydraulic system should be configured upon the trailer and ramps and/or a specification as to those matters because one or more of its servants or agents did not do so on its behalf? If so, please identify the servant(s) or agent(s) and say why they did not do so.
19. Does the Seventh Defendant agree that a necessary part of the installation of the hydraulic system upon the trailer which was carried out by the seventh defendant was to mount the hydraulic cylinder bases of the hydraulic cylinders on both the right and left hand rear of the trailer upon metal support bases welded to the trailer, which metal support bases are or can be variously referred to as "mounts", "clevis mounts" or "lugs"?
20. Does the Seventh Defendant agree, on the assumption that before it performed the work of supplying and installing a hydraulic system to the trailer the trailer had never been fitted with a hydraulic system, that for the Seventh Defendant to install the hydraulic system: (a) it was necessary for the Seventh Defendant to fit supports for the hydraulic cylinder bases on each side of the rear of the trailer by welding lugs or mounts or clevis mount onto the rear of the trailer; and (b) that the Seventh Defendant did so? 14A. If the answer to either or both of Interrogatory 14(a) and (b) above is in the negative, when the Seventh Defendant performed the work of supplying and installing a hydraulic system to the trailer, did the Seventh Defendant use existing metal lugs or clevis mounts protruding from the left and right rear of the trailer as supports for the cylinders or arms of the hydraulic system, and if so, what did the servants and agents of the Seventh Defendant do to satisfy themselves that the existing metal lugs were adequate for that purpose, if anything.
21. Look at the document annexed hereto and marked "F" headed "WorkCover NSW Photographs" and incorporating a copy of a photograph numbered 09, and say whether it depicts the hydraulic arm attached to the right rear of the trailer as it was installed to the trailer by the Seventh Defendant.
22. Look at the document annexed hereto and marked "G" headed "WorkCover NSW Photographs" and incorporating a copy of a photograph numbered 10, and say whether it depicts the hydraulic arm attached to the left rear of the trailer which has come free of its welded connection to the rear of the trailer where it was originally installed by the Seventh Defendant as part of the completion of the work of supplying and installing the hydraulic system to the trailer.
23. Look at the document annexed hereto and marked "H" headed "WorkCover NSW Photographs" and incorporating a copy of a photograph numbered 12, and say whether it depicts the hydraulic arm attached to the left rear of the trailer which has come free of its welded connection to the rear of the trailer where it was originally installed by the Seventh Defendant as part of the completion of the work of supplying and installing the hydraulic system to the trailer.
24. Look at the two page document annexed hereto and marked "D" referred to in interrogatory 5 and say: (a) what or who (identifying the person by name if it is a person) is signified or referred to by the letters "AD" appearing at the top left of the first page of the document and underlined four times? (b) was the first question appearing at the top of the first page of the document "1 - can we adjust pressure on unit we have done ramps don't come right up have to push" answered by any person or persons, and if so please identify that person or those persons and say what connection they had with the Seventh Defendant, say what the answer was and whether anything was done to enable the ramps to be fully elevated without pushing; and if so, what, when and where? (c) look at the handwritten notation below and to the right side of the first question and transcribe it legibly and say what it means or signifies, in particular what is meant by what appear to be the letters and words "AP fixed the problem"?

Amendments 05 February 2016 - Inserted "(No 2)" in case name 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: 05 February 2016