or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments
High Court, in a claim for alleged fraud against a bank, dismisses a motion to compel replies to interrogatories, on the grounds that the interrogatories were inappropriate.
Whether plaintiff bank is required to answer outstanding interrogatories – defendant alleges fraud on the part of the plaintiff bank - interrogatories had been answered nine months after service but answers allegedly unsatisfactory – defendant says no difference between unsatisfactory answers and no answers procedurally – plaintiff bank says motion resolved and only costs outstanding – usually motion would be resolved but parties previously proceeded before the court on the merits of the application – five categories of interrogatory bank is not required to reply to – meanings and effects of documents – whether documents were forged – imprecisely worded interrogatories – actions relating to a third party not under the control of the bank or even party to the proceedings – matters of evidence –motion had not been resolved but has now been heard and dismissed.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.