clr/1987/1987_1_464.pdf

(1987)1987December 8 [PiKIS,J] ANDREASPARIS, Plaintiff, v.

1. M/T«MEROILB»NOWLYINGATTHEPORTOFLIMASSOL
2. SHELLCYPRUSTRADINGCO.LTD, Defendants. (AdmiraltyAction No. 42/87). Admiralty—Practice—Interrogatones—TheAdmiraltyJunsdiction Order
3. 91 —Application by defendants, filedbefore theanswer tothepetition, for leave toadministerinterrogatories—Amenity tograntsuchaleave confined to*... any mattermatenal totheissue...» —Theissuesaredefined either by anoralstatement (Rule38)orbytheexchange ofpleadings(Rules82and83) —Before definition of issuesitisimpossible todetermine the matenalityof any fact or matter — Consequently, the Court has no power to order interrogatories before definition of issues — Application dismissed as premature. 10 Admiralty—Practice—Interrogatones—TheAdmiraltyJunsdictionOrder1893, Rule 91 — Whether possible under the guise of mten-ogatones to obtain betterandfurtherparticulars—Inaproper case,itispossible. The facts ofthiscasesufficiently appear inthejudgment of theCourt. *5 Applicationdismissedwith costs. Application. Application by defendants for leave to administer interrogatories to the plaintiff designed to elicitthe substratum of 20 essential particulars of theagreement referred toinparas.3and 4 of the petition. C.Saveriades, for applicants - defendants. E.Flourentzos, for respondent - plaintiff. Cur.adv. vult. 25 464 1 C.L.R. Parisv.M/T Meroil Β 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 leavetoadministerinterrogatories to 5 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 10 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 15 of facts inthe natureof 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 20 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.
4. Particulars will not be ordered before defence unless indispensable toenable thedefendant tomakehisdefence. Closer 25 examination of thewording of R. 91 suggeststhatamenitytogrant 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 theparties before theCourtof thefacts founding the 30 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.
5. Interrogatories under R. 91 can only be ordered with regard to facts or matters material to the issue. The materiality of facts is 35 directly related toand dependenton thecontentand complexion of the issues in dispute. Before the definition of an issue it is '(vol 22,2nded..p 366etseq). '*<See,Ord 237 of the Rules, and Ord 19r 7et seq. of the English Rules of the Supreme Courtof
6. see. also,theAnnual Practice 1958,ρ 460). 465 Pikls J. Paris v. M/T Meroil Β

(1987)impossible to determine the materiality of any fact or matter; consequently, nopower vestsintheCourttodirectinterrogatories thereunder before the identification and definition of theissuesin dispute. Iam driven, therefore, to the conclusion that the application is 5 premature and as such itisdismissed with costs. Application dismissed withcosts. 466