Elcock Optometrists Pty Ltd & Opalray Pty Ltd v Wallis & Ors [1993] QSC 151

c··,, s c.. ??:../ I sI State Reporting Buteau · TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS (Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold .without the written authority of the Director, State Reporting Bureau.) SUPREME COURT OF QUEE~SLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION No 689 of 1992 ELCOCK bPTOMETRISTS.~TY LTD First Plaintiff and OPALRAY PTY LTD Second Plaintiff ( \ and TREVOR WALLIS and ZAMB GLASS PTY LTD and MACSHELF (NO 47) PTY LIMITED . trading as EYEWEAR NOW THE ONE HOUR OPTICAL SPECIALISTS BRISBANE .. DATE 04/06/93 JUDGMENT First Defendant Second Defendant Third Defendant 1 4th Floor, The Law Courts, George Street, Brisbane, Q. 4000 Telephone: (07) 227 4360. Facsimile: (07) 227 5532 -- 1 of 22 -- 040693 evs (Williams J) HIS HONOUR: I have prepared reasons for judgment, which I publish. My orders will be as follows: on the summons of the first and third defendants filed 7 May 1993 I ordei ttiat the first plaintiff file and serve a supplementary affidavit of documents within 14 days of the making of this order, no order 10 as to costs. On the summons of the first plaintiff of 11 May 1993 I order that, (1)j the first defendant provide within 14 days of the making of this order further and better particulars of (', 20 \ ) paragraph six of the defence delivered 19 August 1992 as sought in paragraphs 1 ' 2, 3 and 4 of the request of 13.April 1993 and paragraph 2 of the letter of 11 May 1993; (2), the ('l 'J.·- -- first and third defendants file and serve a supplementary affidavit of documents within 14 days of the making of this order; (3) , the first and third defendants pay the first plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the summons to be taxed. . ...,. • 2 JUDGMENT 30 ( ...... 40 ( 50 60 -- 2 of 22 -- () (j IN THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND No. 689 of 1992 Before the Hon. Mr Justice Williams BETWEEN: ELCOCK OPTOMETRISTS PTY LTD First Plaintiff AND: OPALRAY PTY LTD Second Plaintiff TREVOR WALLIS First Defendant AND: ZAMB GLASS PTY LTD Second Defendant AND: MACSHELF (NO. 47) PTY LIMITED trading as EYEWEAR NOW THE ONE HOUR OPTICAL SPECIALISTS Third Defendant JUDGMENT - WILLIAMS J. Delivered the 4th day of June, 1993 CATCHWORDS: Practice - further and better particulars of pleadings - further and better discovery. Counsel: Varley for 1st and 3rd Defendants Doyle for 1st Plaintiff Solicitors: Clarke and Kann for 1st and 3rd Defendants Clayton Utz for 1st Plaintiff Hearing date: 13th May 1993 -- 3 of 22 -- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND No. 689 of 1992 BETWEEN: ELCOCK OPTOMETRISTS PTY LTD First Plaintiff AND: OPALRAY PTY LTD Second Plaintiff (l AND: () AND: TREVOR WALLIS First Defendant ZAMB GLASS PTY LTD Second Defendant MACSHELF (NO. 47) PTY LIMITED trading as EYEWEAR NOW THE ONE HOUR OPTICAL SPECIALISTS Third Defendant JUDGMENT - WILLIAMS J. Delivered the 4th day of June, 1993 By summons filed 7th May 1993 the first and third defendants ("the defendants") have applied for orders that the first plaintiff ("the plaintiff") provide further and better particulars of paras. 8 and 11 of its statement of claim delivered 22nd July 1992, and also that the plaintiff make, file and serve a further and better affidavit of documents. By a summons filed 11th May 1993 the plaintiff has sought orders that the first defendant provide further and better -- 4 of 22 -- 2 particulars of the defence delivered 19th August 1992, and also that the first-and third defendants make, file and serve a further and better affidavit of documents. It will be .·necessary to refer to each of those four applications separately, but before doing so it is convenient to set out the broad detail of the action. Over the relevant period the plaintiff has carried on the practice of optometry at 28 locations throughout Queensland; the administrative headquarters were in central Brisbane. From 1st August 1988 to 18th November 1991 the first defendant was employed full time by the plaintiff as its general manager. After ._leaving employment with the plaintiff, the first defendant has been employed by the third defendant which carries on business as optometrists in competition with the plaintiff. Broadly the allegation of the plaintiff is that during the course of the first defendant's employment with it, he wrongfully copied and took away confidential information which has· been used to solicit business from clients of the plaintiff, and has thereby caused the plaintiff to suffer loss and damage. The relief claimed by the plaintiff includes damages for breach of contract of employment, damages for breach of a duty of good faith, an account of profits, and damages for conversion and/or detinue. The defendants do not admit critical allegations made in the statement of claim, but they do admit that the first defendant in the course of employment with the plaintiff, at various .times,. copied the plaintiff's information and took it 0 0 0 G -- 5 of 22 -- ( ) ( ) __ / ( 3 away. Specifically the defence alleges that conduct was not "without the first plaintiff's authority or consent". In the course of dealing with the specific applications it will be necessary to go to the pleadings in some more detail, but the foregoing presents a broad overview of what is involved in the litigation. Defendants' claim for further and better particulars Further and better particulars are sought of paras. 8 and 11 of the statement of claim; they are in the following terms: "8. In the course of the employment (at times and in ways not known in detail to the First Plaintiff) the First Defendant copied the First Plaintiff's information and/or removed from the First Plaintiff's premises at Level 24, Lennons Plaza, 66 Queen Street, Brisbane documents containing the First Plaintiff's information. 11 . In consequence of the matters referred to inparas. 8-10 the First Plaintiff has suffered loss and damage in the way of loss of clients." The initial request for further and better particulars of the statement of claim was made on 25th August 1992; so far as is relevant it was in these terms: "3. As to para. 8 of the Statement of Claim: (a) Identify the information allegedly copied by the First Defendant; and (b) Identify the information allegedly removed by the First Defendant. 5. As to para~ 11 of the Statement of Claim, provide full· particulars of the loss and damage allegedly suffered by the First Plaintiff,including identification of those clients which it is alleged the First Plaintiff has lost." -- 6 of 22 -- 4 Further and better par~iculars were •upplied in response thereto on l7th November 1992. The relevant part~culars were stated as follows: . ' "4. (a) The . First Plaintiff is unable to provide full particulars of the information copied by the First · Defendant until after interlocutory steps have been completed, but it includes the names and addresses of customers of the First Plaintiff. Further details will be provided prior to trial. (b) The First. Plaintiff is unable to provide full particulars of the information removed by the- First Defendant but it includes the names and addresses ofcustomers-of the First Plaintiff. Further particulars will be provided prior to trial. 6. The First Plaintiff is unable to provide fullparticulars of its loss and damage at this stage. Full particulars will be provided priorto trial." Thereafter some discovery was had, but, as will appear later, there are deficiencies in the discovery made by each 0 0 side. On the basis that the plaintiff had inspected documents 0 disco~ered by the defendants the solicitors for the latter in a letter dated 26th March 1993 asserted that the "First Plaintiff should provide these particulars now that it has had an opportunity to inspect the documents discovered by our clients"; that assertion was made specifically in relation to para. 4 (a) of ·the further and better particulars originally supplied. That letter also sought further and better particulars of the matters referred to in paras. 4(b) and 6 of the original further and better particulars -"within fourteen days". 'The letter asserted that the defendants were "entitled to proper particulars of the allegations in the Statement of c -- 7 of 22 -- 5 Claim and is not required to wait for those to be delivered some time prior to trial when convenient to the First Plaintiff." The solicitors for the plaintiff responded in a letter dated 8th April 1993, by asserting that the plaintiff would "not be in a position to provide them until having received Answers to Interrogatories which our client· proposes to deliver for the examination of your client." The defendants' () reply was set out in a letter of 15th April 1993 from its () (_) solicitors. The relevant part· of the letter is in the following terms: "We do not accept that the particulars which our clients have sought are particulars, the provision of which should be delayed until the completion of interlocutory steps. How is it that your client is unable to provide particulars of its loss and damage until it has had an opportunity to interrogate our clients? Unless the further and better particulars are provided by April 23, 1993, our instructions are to make an appropriate application. Again, we shall be seeking the costs of such an application." As noted above the defendants filed the summons on 7th May. By letter dated 11th ·May 1993 the first plaintiff said this: "As to your client's request for further and better discovery (sic) of the Statement of Claim we advise as follows:- (a) Paragraph 8 of the Statement of Claim The information copied and removed from the First Plaintiff's premises included: ( i) Extracts of the First Plaintiff's client list forwarded by the Defendants' former· solicitors, Messrs Michael Quinn andCompany to the Plaintiff's solicitors under cover of a letter dated 21 May, 1992. -- 8 of 22 -- (b) 6 ( ii) Extracts of the . First Plaintiff's client list referred to in Schedule 2 of the First .. Defendant's Supplementary Af.fidavi t of Documents dated 21 April, 1993. Further and better particulars will be provided after interlocutor~ steps have been completed. Paragraph 11 of the Statement of Claim The loss suffered by our client is the loss of custom which the First Plaintiff would otherwise have had but for the conduct of the Defendants referred to in para. 10 of the Statement of Claim. Further and better particulars will be provided after interlocutory steps have been completed." 0 On the hearing of the application counsel for the defendants conceded that the particulars of para. 8 provided Q in the letter of 11th May were "acceptable at this stage". But he did submit that further and better particulars of para. -- 11 should still be provided. Counsel for the plaintiff made it clear in the course of his submissions (if it were not already so) that the plaintiff's loss and damage was their "loss of custom" following from the defendants' conduct. As the first defendant had not yet particularised what precise .. - information he had taken, and as the defendants have not revealed what use they had made of that information, it was not possible for the plaintiff to give further particulars. Given the nature of the defendants' conduct constituting the cause of action, and the relationship between the precise conduct of the first defendant and the loss occasioned by the plaintiff, I am of the opinion that the. piaintiff' s initial response to the request for further and better particulars was - - the appropriate one. The defendants have only made incomplete discovery (for reasons which I will state later) and 0 -- 9 of 22 -- 7 interrogatories have not yet been delivered. In those circumstances it was premature in my view for the defendants to bring an application for further and better particulars. The particulars provided in the letter of 11th May did not in any way advance the position, and· I reject the submission made on behalf of the defendants that by providing that information the plaintiff conceded that at all material times it was in a position to provide more particularity. () I would therefore refuse to make the order sought by the defendants that the plaintiff provide further and better particulars of paras. 8 and 11 of the Statement of Claim. Application bv Defendants for further and better discovery by Plaintiff The plaintiff filed and served an affidavit of documents on 22nd February 1993. On 24th March 1993 the solicitors for the defendants inspected those documents and thereafter ( ) letters were exchanged between the solicitors for the parties '-.___./ regarding the adequacy of the discovery made by the plaint~ff. The solicitors for the defendants pointed to a number of specific areas where it was contended that there were deficiencies in the affidavit. That culminated in the solicitors for the plaintiff stating in a letter of 6th May 1993 (sent by facsimile transmission): "As to your request for further and better discovery by our client, our client has provided to us further documents which it is prepared to discover. We are currently preparing a supplementary affidavit of documents but in the meantime, should you wish to inspect those documents please -- 10 of 22 -- 8 contact Mr Powell of our office to · arrange a mutually con:venient time." Notwithstanding that, application in question was on the following day the filed by the solicitors for the defendants. . The question of . further and better discovery by th~ plaintiff was· taken up further by its solicitor in the letter of 12th May 1993 to the solicitors for the defendants. It pointed out,. correctly, that prior to receiving the application they were "arranging for our client to file a 0 / Supplementary Affidavit of Documents". .The letter went on to state that they had requested the plaintiff "to make further searches to attempt to locate any further discoverable documents". A question was then raised as to the possibility of relevant documents having been taken by the first defendant from the plaintiff's custody when he left his employment. The letter then stated that once "those searches have been completed we shall arrange for our client to file its Supplementary Affidavit of Documents". In order to assist the defendants the solicitors for the plaintiff then detailed in that letter some nineteen documents or categories of .documents which would be referred to in the Supplementary Affidavit. Counsel . for the defendants sought an order for further and better discovery within fourteen days and an order for costs. In my opinion the application for, further and better discovery was strictly premature because_.~he solicitors had on the day before the application was . filed conceded that a supplementary affidavit was necessary. In my view, given the 0 0 G -- 11 of 22 -- 9 whole history of the litigation, it was unreasonable for the solicitors for the defendants not to give the solicitors fo~ the plaintiff a reasonable time to comply · with that concession. However, because of the feuding ori interlocuto~y· matters which has taken place it is desirable that I make a specific order with respect to the plaintiff's further and better affidavit of documents. In those circumstances I will make an order that the (-~) first plaintiff file and serve a supplementary affidavit of documents within fourteen days of the date of my· order~ ( ( ) '--... __ _/ Plaintiff's application for further and better particulars ofpara. 6 of defence Paragraph 6 of the defence is in the following terms: "In regard to paras. 8 and 9 of the Statement of Claim, the First Defendant admits, in the course ofthe employment, at various times, copying the First Plaintiff's information, and taking away from the First Plaintiff's premises at Level 24, Lennons Plaza, 66 Queen Street, Brisbane, or its previouspremises at 180 Queen Street, Brisbane, documents containing the First Plaintiff's information, although the First Defendant denies that any of the First Plaintiff's information was copied by the First Defendant, or taken from the First Plaintiff's premises by the First Defendant, without the First Plaintiff's authority or consent." The request for particulars was contained in: a letter from the plaintiff's solicitors of 13th April 1993; it was in the following terms: "We refer to your client's Defence and ask that you provide the following further and better particularsof para. 6 thereof: 1 • Provide particulars of thewhich the first Defendant Plaintiff's information. 'variouscopied times' atthe First 2. Provide particulars of the 'various times' at which the First Plaintiff (sic) took away from -- 12 of 22 -- 3. 10 -the First Plaintiff's. premises documents containing the First Plaintiff's information. Provide ··particulars of ~nformation which was Defendant. the First copied by Plaintiff's the First 4. Provide particulars of the documents which the First Defertdant took_ away - from the First Plaintiff's premises. 5. With respect to each occasion on which the first defendant copied the First Plaintiff's information, and/or took away such information f:rom.the First.Plaintiff's premises, state: (a) the ·date on which the First Plaintiff gave its authority or consent to the copying and/or the taking away of such information from the First Plaintiff's premises by the First Defendant; (b) who_on-behalf of the First Plaintiff gave the First Defendant the authority or consent; (c) the place which the First Plaintiff gave its authority or consent; (d) was such consent or authority given orallyor in writing; (e) _if wholly or partly oral, state that partof the consent or· authority which was given orally; (f) if the authority or consent was wholly or partly in writing: - (i) state- that part of consent or authority which was in writing; (ii) identify, by reference to date,author and addressee, the paper writings which are said to contain the written consent or authority; (i~i) produce for inspection and provide a . copy of _ any such document -or paper writing." The relevant response was in the letter from the defendants' solicitors of 23rd April 1993; relevantly it was . , to the following effect: 0 0 0 -- 13 of 22 -- (_) l) C_/, 1 1 "1 and 2 At this time, the First Defendant is unable to provide any further and betterparticulars of the 'various times' at which he copied the First Plaintiff's information, or took away from the First Plaintiff's premises documents containing the First Plaintiff's information, save of course for the qualification evident inthe First Defendant's pleading that the 'various times' were during the course of the First Defendant's employment by the First Plaintiff; 3 and 4 The First Plaintiff's information which was copied or taken away from the First Plaintiff's premises by the First Defendant consisted of extracts from the First Plaintiff's client recording system containing the name and address of clients of the First Plaintiff; 5 (a) The First Plaintiff first gave its authority and consent (which authority and consent was never revoked during thecourse of the First Defendant's employment by the First Plaintiff) to the copying and/or taking away of information from the First Plaintiff's premises· by the First Defendant in or about December 1988; (b) Ian Elcock; (c) 180 Queen Street, Brisbane in the State of Queensland; (d) orally." That brought a response from the solicitors for the plaintiff in their letter of 27th April 1993, to following effect: "Insofar as our client's Request for Further and Better Particulars is concerned, we do not consideryour client's response adequate. As to requests numbered 1 and 2, your client's response that it is unable at this time to provide any further and better particulars of the 'various times' at which he copied the first plaintiff's information is not sufficient. With respect to requests numbered 3 and 4, your client should state with particularity those partsof the extracts from the first plaintiff's client -- 14 of 22 -- 12 recording system which were copied or taken· away from the first plaintiff's premises." In a reply dated 4th May 1993 the solicitors for the defendants asserted that they had sufficiently answered the request for further and better particulars but, in order to avoid any unnecessary waste of time and cost, provided some additional information as follows: "1 and 2 '" 3 and 4 As we have previously said, at this time, the particulars provided by the First Defendant are the best particulars he can provide. The First Defendant was employed by the First Plaintiff, as its General Manager, between August, 1988 and November, 1991. One of the First Defendant's tasks, amongst. others, as General Manager, was to develop a direct mail marketing strategy for the First Plaintiff, and once that strategy was developed, to implement a direct mail marketing programme on behalf of the First Plaintiff. At diverse times throughout ·the course of his employment by the FirstPlaintiff (the dates of which as we have previously _ said the First Defendant cannot, at this time, further particularise) the First Defendant took the Plaintiff's information home with him to complete work after hours on the development of the direct mail marketing strategy, and thereafter, on its implementation. We refer you to the comments made above in relation to the Supplementary Affidavit of Documents. The extracts copied or taken home by the First Defendant consisted of extracts containing some of the names and addresses of the First Plaintiff's clients (again, see the enclosed extract)." The final letter to which it is necessary to refer is one from the solicitors for the plaintiff to the solicitors for the defendants of 11th May 1993. Relevantly for present purposes it said: "2. In para. 6 of your client's Defence the First Defendant admits that at 'various times' in the 0 0 (_) G -- 15 of 22 -- 0 (_) ( ) '"-.. ___ / 13 ' course of his employment he copied the First Plaintiff's information and took it away from the First Plaintiff's premises. We have requested your client to provide further and better particulars of the 'various times' at which he copied and took away from the First Plaintiff's information from the First Plaintiff's premises. In response, your client has stated that the best particulars it can provide is that the 'various times' or during the course of the First Defendant's employment by the First Plaintiff~ Your client should, at the very least, provide the following particulars: (a) The number of times he copied the First Plaintiff's information. (b) The number of times he took. away the First Plaintiff's information from the First Plaintiff's premises. (c) The frequency with which he copied the First Plaintiff's information. (d) The frequency with which he took away the First Plaintiff's · information from the .First Plaintiff's premises." I should say that during the course of argument counsel for the plaintiff stated that his client was "satisfied with the response to para. 5" of the initial request. All that really remained in issue were the matters highlighted by the above extract from the letter of 11th May. In dealing with this application it must be remembered that it is only the first defendant who knows what he did with the plaintiff's information. The plaintiff can be taken to know what information it had, but it does not know precisely what the first defendant did with that information. Findings against the defendants could be made based on circumstantial evidence, but that only highlights the necessity for the first -- 16 of 22 -- 14 defendant giving'full and precise particulars of his relevant conduct. In ,my view the first defendant has not addressed specifically the matters raised in the letter of 11th May 1993 in providing the particulars he has given of para. 6 of his de:eence .. It is important for the plaintiff to know whether the i.n.formation. was ·copied· and/or ·taken away on only one occasion or. on a . number .. of occasions. If on a number of occasions,: it is ·important for. the plaintiff to know, and the 0 first defendant should be able·to answer, whether such conduct occurred regularly -or. only infrequently. Certainly some 0 approximation should be able to be given of the total number of times_-those·events occurred. Further, the first defendant should be able to state with greater precision what information was "extracted" from the plaintiff's information. Reference is made to "names and addresses" in the particulars given, but there is nothing to 0 limit the scope of information taken to names and addresses. In all of those circumstances I have come to the .. G conclusion that the first defendant should provide further and better particulars of the defence as requested, and I will order that the first defendant provide within fourteen days from the date of my order further and better particulars of .. para. 6 of the defence as sought in paras. 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the request of 13th April 1993 and para. 2 of the letter of 11th May 1993. -- 17 of 22 -- 15 Further and better discovery by First and Third Defendants The original Notice Requiring Discovery was dated 20th August 1992. In due course an affidavit was filed and served, but by letter dated 14th April 1993 the solicitors for: the plaintiff contended that the affidavit on behalf of the defendants was inadequate; reference in particular was made to the absence of any "extracts of the First Plaintiff's client lists which were previously in their possession''. The ~) defendants' solicitors responded by letter of 23rd April 1993, enclosing a Supplementary Affidavit of Documents by the first () ( ) ( ) defendant. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of that Affidavit were in the following terms: "3. I have had, but have not now, in·my possession or power the documents relating to the matters in question in this cause set forth in Schedule · 2 hereto. 4. The last mentioned documents were last in my possession or power on or about the date that they were posted to the persons to whom they were addressed, or returned to the Plaintiff'ssolicitors on May 21, 1992." All that is stated in Schedule 2 is the following: "Extracts of the First Plaintiff's address list for its clients." In a letter of 27th April 1993 the solicitors for the plaintiff stated that they did "not consider that the description of the documents set out in Schedule 2 is sufficient." They asked the solicitors for the defendants to "identify with particularity the relevant extracts of the first plaintiff's address list." In their reply of 4th May the solicitors for the defendants asserted that the description of documents in Schedule 2 was "sufficient". The -- 18 of 22 -- 16 letter enclosed.an extract from anc address list. The letter went on to say that it "was extracts similar to that exhibit" which the first-defendant once h~d in his_power. The solicitors .. for the plaintiff responded in a letter of 11th May 1993 by pointing out .. that the description in the Supplementary. A_ffidavi t did not enable the plaintiff to identify the documents. It therefore asserted that something further had to be supplied._ · On this part _of the application counsel fo~ the plaintiff c=) referred to a letter of 12th May 1992 from the then solicitors for the defendants to _the solicitors for the plaintiff. In that ·letter reference was made to mailing campaigns of the 0 third .. defendant during the period_ March to May 1992. It would appear to be those campaigns which are at the core of the plaintiff's allegations that its confidential information was used by the defendants.: In that letter of 12th May. reference is made·_ to "a. list" and "a mailing list" with respect to the 0 condpct of the defendants. In those circumstances the first and third defendants should be ordere~ to file and serve a supplementary affidavit () of.·_ documents; clearly the affidavit filed to date is deficient. · There was some argument as to whether or not the supplementary affidavits which are to be filed by each side should contain references to financial accounts and other documents, including annual returns of the companies in • < question. Each counsel broadly contended that such documents -- 19 of 22 -- c·, (j () 17 were discoverable by the opposite party, but were not material documents so as to be discoverable by his side .. So far as the plaintiff's case is concerned it is relevant, at least on the question of quantum of damages, to know how its profitability has been affected by any proven use by the defendants of confidential information. It follows, in my view, that the financial records of the plaintiff insofar as they indicate the level of its trading are discoverable. Further, it is also relevant for the plaintiff to establish the extent to which the trading of the third defendant increased at about the time of the . alleged use of the confidential information. Again it seems ;to me that the financial·- records of the third defendant insofar as they indicate -the level of trading and profitability of the business ~re discoverable. However, and this was largely conceded by each counsel at the end of argument, documents such as the annual returns of the companies would not be material or relevant and therefore would not be discoverable. ( ' I do not propose to say anything more with respect to specific documents. It is now up to each side to file a supplementary affidavit of documents in the light of what I have said~ The sufficiency of discovery can then be assessed in the light of all available information. Costs It is obvious that the defendants have substantially failed on their application, though I am making an order that the first plaintiff provide further and better discovery. -- 20 of 22 -- 18 Generally, for the reasons given, I have held . that the defendants were premature in bringing their application. The first plaintiff has .been substantially successful on its application~ I must now determine the appropriate order for costs in all the circumstances. Having given the matter careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that the appropriate order is to make no order as to costs on the defendants 1 application, so that each party will bear its own Q costs thereof. On the application of the first plaintiff there should be an order that the first and third defendants pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the application to be taxed. Orders ( 1 ) On the summons of the first .and third defendants filed 7th May 1993 I order that the first plaintiff file and serve a supplementary affidavit of documents within fourteen days of·the making of this order. No order as to costs. (2) On the summons of the first plaintiff of 11th May 1993 I order that: (i) the first defendant provide within fourteen days of the making of this order further and better particulars of para. 6 of the defence delivered 19th August 1992 as sought in paras. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the request of 13th April 1993 and para. 2 of the letter of 11th May 1993; 0 0 -- 21 of 22 -- .. () (J 19 (ii) the first and third defendants file and serve a supplementary affidavit of documents within fourteen days of the making of this order; (iii) the first and third defendants pay the first plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the summons to be taxed. -- 22 of 22 --