Paris Andreas ν. M/T "Meroil B" and Another (1987) 1 CLR 464

(1987)1 CLR 464 ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ CyLaw | Αναφορικά μ'εμάς | " target="_top">Επικοινωνία | Όροι χρήσης Έρευνα - Κατάλογος Αποφάσεων - Εμφάνιση Αναφορών (Noteup on) - Αρχείο σε μορφή PDF - Αφαίρεση Υπογραμμίσεων

(1987)1 CLR 464 [PIKIS, J.] ANDREAS PARIS, Plaintiff, v.

1. M/T «MEROIL B» NOW LYING AT THE PORT OF LIMASSOL
2. SHELL CYPRUS TRADING CO. LTD., Defendants. (Admiralty Action No. 42/87). Admiralty-Practice-Interrogatories-The Admiralty Jurisdiction Order 1893, 91-Application by defendants, filed before the answer to the petition, for leave to administer interrogatories-Amenity to grant such a leave confined to «... any matter material to the issue...»-The issues are defined either by an oral statement (Rule 38) or by the exchange of pleadings (Rules 82 and 83)-Before definition of issues it is impossible to determine the materiality of any fact or matter-Consequently, the Court has no power to order interrogatories before definition of issues-Application dismissed as premature. Admiralty-Practice-Interrogatories-The Admiralty Jurisdiction Order 1893, Rule 91-Whether possible under the guise of interrogatories to obtain better and further particulars-In a proper case, it is possible. The facts of this case sufficiently appear in the judgment of the Court. Application dismissed with costs. Application. Application by defendants for leave to administer interrogatories to the plaintiff designed to elicit the substratum of essential particulars of the agreement referred to in paras. 3 and 4 of the petition. C. Saveriades, for applicants-defendants. E. Flourentzos, for respondent-plaintiff. Cur. adv. vult. PIKIS J. read the following judgment. At issue is the interpretation and scope of R. 91 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Cyprus in its Admiralty Jurisdiction (the Rules). Applicants (defendants) seek leave to administer interrogatories to the plaintiff designed to elicit the substratum of essential particulars of the agreement referred to in paras 3 and 4 of the Petition. Counsel for the respondent (plaintiff) pointed out, correctly it seems to me that, what defendants wish to obtain, under the guise of interrogatories, is further and better particulars of the claim. Be that as it may, R. 91 does not in terms limit the power given thereunder to the administration of interrogatories, stricto sensu, notwithstanding the heading of that section of the Rules. In an appropriate case the Court may direct, through the process of interrogatories sanctioned by this Rule, the disclosure of facts in the nature of further and better particulars. A more fundamental objection to the application is that it is premature. Only exceptionally, counsel submitted, should the Court order interrogatories before delivery of the answer to the petition. This is the practice of English Courts, elicited in Atkin's Forms. A similar practice obtains in applications for further and better particulars of the claim. The Civil Procedure Rules are modelled on that practice as can be gathered from Ord. 19, r.
3. Particulars will not be ordered before defence unless indispensable to enable the defendant to make his defence. Closer examination of the wording of R. 91 suggests that amenity to grant leave to administer interrogatories is confined to «... any matters material to the issue ...». Under the Rules, issues in admiralty proceedings are defined in one of two ways: Either by an oral Statement of the parties before the Court of the facts founding the claim or defence, as the case may be, as provided in R. 38; or by a direction for the exchange of pleadings in lieu thereof. In accordance with R. 82 and R.
4. Interrogatories under R. 91 can only be ordered with regard to facts or matters material to the issue. The materiality of facts is directly related to and dependent on the content and complexion of the issues in dispute. Before the definition of an issue it is impossible to determine the materiality of any fact or matter; consequently, no power vests in the Court to direct interrogatories thereunder before the identification and definition of the issues in dispute. I am driven, therefore, to the conclusion that the application is premature and as such it is dismissed with costs. Application dismissed with costs. cylaw.org: Από το ΚΙΝOΠ/CyLii για τον Παγκύπριο Δικηγορικό Σύλλογο