Bullivant's Natural Health Products Pty Ltd v C F Planners Pty Ltd & Ors [1999] QSC 40

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND No. 450 of 1992 Brisbane Before White J [[Bullivant's Natural Health Products Pty Ltd v C F Planners Pty Limited]] BETWEEN: AND: BULLIV ANT'S NATURAL HEALTH PRODUCTS PTY LTD (ACN 010 008 616) C F PLANNERS PTY LIMITED (ACN 006 887 225) Plaintiff First Defendant MAURICE BERNARD BYRNE and ROBIN O'HAIR Second Defendants BERIMAH PTY LTD (ACN 005 905 895), THE NEWS VENDING INSTITUTE INCORPORATED and W HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 005 936 265) Third Defendants DAVID VAUGHAN BULLIVANT BY ORIGINAL ACTION AND BETWEEN: ROBIN O'HAIR .. BULLIVANT'S NATURAL HEALTH PRODUCTS PTY LTD (ACN 010 008 616) Third Party Plaintiff Defendant [1999] QSC 40 -- 1 of 5 -- ( (, REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - WHITE J Judgment delivered 10 March 1999 CATCHWORDS: Summonses for particulars and interrogatories - Costs' Orders. Counsel: Mr D Clothier for applicant/plaintiff Mr A Blow QC for respondent/2nd named 2nd defendant Solicitors: redchip lawyers for applicant No solicitor for respondent Hearing Date: Written submissions received 5 March 1999. -- 2 of 5 -- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND No. 450 of 1992 Brisbane Before White J [[Bullivant's Natural Health Products Pty Ltd v C F Planners Pty Limited]] BETWEEN: AND: BULLIVANT'S NATURAL HEALTH PRODUCTS PTY LTD (ACN 010008616) Plaintiff o C F PLANNERS PTY LIMITED (ACN 006 887 225) First Defendant () MAURICE BERNARD BYRNE and ROBIN O'HAIR Second Defendants BERIMAH PTY LTD (ACN 005 905 895). THE NEWS VENDING INSTITUTE INCORPORATED and W HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 005 936 265) Third Defendants C) DAVID VAUGHAN BULLIVANT Third Party () BY ORIGINAL ACTION AND BETWEEN: ROBIN O'HAIR BULLIV ANT'S NATURAL HEALTH PRODUCTS PTY LTD (ACN 010 008 616) Plaintiff Defendant ----~--- -- 3 of 5 -- REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - WHITE J Judgment delivered 10 March 1999 1. There were two summonses before the court in which: • the plaintiff (Bullivant' s) sought further and better particulars of his defence and counterclaim from the 2nd named 2nd defendant ("Dr O'Hair") and • further and better answers to interrogatories from Dr O'Hair, • the third party sought further and better particulars of the third party statement of claim from Dr O'Hair. Judgment was given on 4 March 1999. The parties were invited to make submissions with respect to appropriate costs' orders in writing by 8 March 1999. They have done so. 3. Bullivant's and the third party were successful in their application for further and better particulars. Dr O'Hair did not oppose an order for costs in favour of the third party which was· made on 4 March 1999. 4. The interrogatories had been delivered to Dr O'Hair on 10 April 1996. On 30 November 1998 Mackenzie J ordered by consent that they be answered by 4 December 1998. The summons challenged the adequacy of the answers. 5. Bullivant's did not press for answers for two interrogatories. The answers to two others could be discerned from material filed in the summons or from the submissions and this was accepted as sufficient. Four objections to answering were upheld. Dr O'Hair was ordered to give further and better answers to the remaining eight interrogatories. -- 4 of 5 -- 6. 7. 8. Mr Blow QC's submissions on the application for interrogatories are that there be no order as to costs since each side was partially successful. Mr Clothier, for Bullivant's, contends that it should have its costs, or a substantial part of them. The bases for objection to answering the interrogatories taken by Dr O'Hair in his answers were, as far as many were concerned, not well founded being often a formulaic response. It was not until Mr Blow QC's submissions were received that appropriate objections were taken, some of which were successful. Bullivant's has been more successful than not on its summons with respect to the further and better answers to interrogatories (which also included the challenge to the adequacy of the particulars) and it was necessary for the application to be brought. In those circumstances it is appropriate that Bullivant's have its costs () The orders are that the respondent/2nd named 2nd defendant pay the applicant/plaintiff s C) costs of and incidental to the summons for furt~er and better particulars and further and better answers to interrogatories to be taxed. (J -- 5 of 5 --