Strike Out Applications - Questions, Answers And' Oppression?

• Published date: 20 April 2022
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: William Fry
• Author: Ms Laura Murdock and Garrett Breen

The recent judgment of Mr Justice Barrett in Goode Concrete v CRH Plc, Roadstone Wood Limited and Kilsaran Concrete [2022] IEHC 189 (Goode Concrete) provides useful guidance on applications to strike- out interrogatories where they are prolix, oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous.

What are Interrogatories?

Under Order 31 of the Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC), interrogatories can be used to obtain relevant information on oath from the opposing party. Interrogatories can assist a party in proving its case or undermining it's opponents case by gathering information relevant to facts in dispute and obtaining admissions from the opposing party. Interrogatories can also be a more cost-effective and time-efficient method of obtaining information than discovery.

In the High Court (Court), permission (leave) from the Court is generally required to deliver interrogatories. For proceedings in the Commercial List and Competition List, interrogatories can be delivered without leave, unless a specific corporate officer is requested to answer the interrogatories.

Under the RSC, interrogatories must take the form of leading questions, must be in a negative form and should elicit a "yes" or "no" answer from the opposite party. This point was recently reiterated in J. & L.S. Goodbody Ltd v Clyde Shipping Co Ltd [2022] IEHC 189.

Application to Strike-Out Interrogatories

Under Order 31, Rule 7 RSC, an application can be made to set aside interrogatories on the ground that they have been exhibited unreasonably or vexatiously, or struck out because they are prolix, oppressive, unnecessary, or scandalous. Such an application must be made within seven days of the delivery of the interrogatories.

Goode Concrete v CRH Plc, Roadstone Wood Limited and Kilsaran Concrete

In Goode Concrete, the defendants each made an application under Order 31, Rule 7, to set aside the interrogatories delivered by the plaintiffs on the grounds that they were prolix, oppressive, unnecessary, or scandalous. Mr Justice Barrett granted the defendants' applications and struck out the interrogatories in their entirety. [The judgment is accessible here.]

Barrett J first considered whether the plaintiff should have sought leave to deliver the interrogatories. Although these were Competition proceedings, it was the plaintiff's intention for a specific corporate officer of the defendants to answer the interrogatories. Therefore, under Order 31, Rule 5 RSC, leave to deliver the interrogatories should...