URUSAN JEEHAN REHMAN 201 2

INTERROGATORIES ( O.26 RHC & O.21 SCR )

Based on the case of Mahon v Osborne, the court said that: Interrogatories is also known as discovery of facts They are questions served by one party, with leave of the court, to the other who has to answer under oath, usually by an affidavit The questions may relate to any matter which supports the interrogators case or to impeach or destroy his opponents case Difference between O.24 Discovery and O.26 Interrogatories: i. ii. O.24 provides for discovery, inspection and production of documents O.26 provides for discovery of facts by means of questions

USE OF INTERROGATORIES i. ii. iii. In US, interrogatories are commonly used especially in divorce cases In Malaysia, it is NOT commonly used in practice. It is usually used in defamation suits and to cross-examine affidavits One of the purpose they originally served, eliciting admissions is nowadays normally supplied by a notice to admit facts

POWER OF COURT TO ORDER : O.26 r.1 (a) RHC & O.21 r.1 (a) SCR-the court may grant an order for leave to serve on the other party interrogatories relating to any matter in

APPLICATION : O.26 r.1 (a) RHC & O.21 r.1 (a) SCR-

URUSAN JEEHAN REHMAN 201 2

i. ii. iii.
iv.

Application 4 leave of the court is normally made after the close of pleadings and after discovery Application is made by summons to the court in Form 48 (Form 53 in SCR) supported by an affidavit - r.1(1) A copy of the proposed interrogatories in Form 49 (Form 54 in SCR) must be served witth the summons r1(2) If an order is made, it must be in Form 50 ( Form 55 in SCR ) and must be served on the other party r.1 (5) Must be answered in Form 51 within specified time- r.1 (6) INTERROGATORIES WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT : O.26 r.2 RHC, O.21 r.2 SCR -a party may at any time before the close of pleadings and without leave of court, deliver interrogatories relating to any matter in question

v.

THE QUESTIONS i. ii. iii. iv. The questions should be short and clear Long and involved questions are disallowed Refer to r.4 of O.26 RHC & O.21 SCR The questions must be relevant to the issues in the pleadings

DISCRETION OF COURT i. The court has the discretion whether to grant the order for interrogatories and will consider factors : Relevance Necessity

ii.

RELEVANCE-

URUSAN JEEHAN REHMAN 201 2

a) The question must relate to the matter in issue between the parties
b) They can be extended to prove the applicants own

case and attack his opponents case : Hennesy v Wright (1980)

c) They can also be used to seek admissions : Sheikh

Abdullah v Kang Kock Seng -where in this case it was held that if the answers could be material to the purposes of the suit, the interrogatoriesought to be answered but if the answers could not be material for either of these purposes, the defendant should not be ordered to answer the interrogatories d) questions relating solely to credit will not be allowed e) fishing questions will not be permitted. This means looking 4 a case rather than trying to establish it.

iii.

NECESSITY a) REFER to r.1(3) of O.26 RHC & O.21 SCR b) If a witness must be called at the trial to prove a fact, then there will be given to obtain admission of the fact
c) In Ramsey v Ramsey the court held that the discretion

of the court varies from case to case and the court will consider: Is the question relevant Would it help the applicant or has he to call a witness to establish the fact Is the question clear and precise so that the opponent can give a straight answer? Is it reasonable by way of interrogatories? Can the applicant use other means such as:
3

URUSAN JEEHAN REHMAN 201 2

Discovery of document under O.24 Calling/subpoena a witness at the trial ot By just requesting through letters or Serving a notice to admit facts under O.27 INTERROGATORIES AGAINST CORPORATIONS OR SOCIETIES, ETC : O.26 r.3 RHC, O.21 r.3 SCR Eg: Coporation : service is on the secretary or director Societies : public officer or any office bearer

OBJECTIONS The party who has been served with the interrogatories can object on the following grounds: Not relevent Not necessary fishing Evidence, not facts Opinion, not facts Oppressive and scandalous Privilege Premature CASE: Pertubuhan Berita Nasional Malaysia v Stephen Kalong Ningkan In a defamation suit brought by the respondent, the appellant objected to the respondents application for interrogatories on grounds of delay and fishing
4

URUSAN JEEHAN REHMAN 201 2

The judge held that there was no delay and no fishing. The order for interrogatories was granted

ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES Refer r.1 (6) of O.26 RHC & O.21 SCR Also refer to r.8 The answers must not be evasive and must be answered to the best of knowledge, information and belief When necessary, enquiries must be made of agents and servants

In the case of companies the answer to inquiries of past officers and servants must be stated : Stansfield Properties v National Westminster Bank Prolix , argumentative , embarrassing or evasive answers will be expunged, inconsistent answers will also be removed : Philip Hoalim v Amalgamated Theatres

FURTHER ANSWERS Refer to r.6 O.26 RHC & O.21 SCR The application for further answers must make it clear and precisely why it is alleged that the answer is unsatisfactory The court is not concerned with the truth but with the sufficiency of the answers

CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO COMPLY : r7 O26 RHC Dismissal of the action-if pf defaults Striking out of the defence and judgement for pf If df defaults Comittal to prison for contempt if party fails to comply with the order

URUSAN JEEHAN REHMAN 201 2

Committal of the solicitor if the solicitor fails to inform his client of the order for him to answer the interrogatories

PLEASE REFER TO RHC O.26!! ENJOY THE LITTLE THINGS IN LIFE..FOR ONE DAY ULL LOOK BACK & REALIZE THEY WERE THE BIG THINGS -JeeHan RehMan 2012-