Order 9 Rule 22 of the National Court Rules 1983 tells the answering party exactly what is expected.
Order 9 Rule 22
(1) A statement in answer shall, unless the Court otherwise orders, conform to the requirements of this Rule.
(2) A statement under Rule 21 shall be in Form 35 or 36.
(3) A statement shall deal with each interrogatory specifically —
(a) by answering the substance of the interrogatory without evasion; or
(b) by objecting to answer on one or more of the grounds in sub-rule (4), and briefly stating the facts on which the objection is based.
Two words doing a great deal of work. Each interrogatory must be dealt with individually — a single narrative answering several questions at once does not comply. And the answer must engage with the substance of what was asked.
Answering a question about who authorised a payment by describing the company’s general approval procedures is evasion. So is answering “the defendant refers to the documents already discovered”.
Where the answer is genuinely not known, say so — and say what enquiries were made.
Rule 22(4) — only three grounds
Subject to sub-rule (5), a party may object to answer any interrogatory only —
(a) where the answer is not required by an order, that the interrogatory does not relate to any matter in question between him and the party requiring the answer; or
(b) that the interrogatory is vexatious or oppressive; or
(c) privilege.
| Ground | What must be shown |
|---|---|
| (a) Irrelevance | The question does not relate to a matter in question between these two parties. Not available where the answer is required by an order |
| (b) Vexatious or oppressive | The burden of answering is disproportionate, or the question is asked to harass. Compare Rule 19(3), under which the Court shall prevent unnecessary interrogatories |
| (c) Privilege | Legal professional privilege, self-incrimination, and the like. Rule 27 also preserves any rule of law requiring matter to be withheld as injurious to the public interest |
Rule 22(3)(b) requires the objecting party to briefly state the facts on which the objection is based. “Objection: oppressive” does not comply. Say why — the volume of records that would have to be searched, the years involved, the cost.
And note the sting in Rule 22(5): on an application under Rule 19(2) or Rule 21, the Court may require the applicant to specify the grounds of objection and determine their sufficiency. If the objection is held insufficient, the applicant shall not be entitled to object to that interrogatory in the statement at all.
Rule 23 — the deponent
The verifying affidavit may be made by the party; where the party is a disabled person, by his next friend; where a corporation, by a member or officer; where a body of persons suing or sued in its own name or that of an officer, by a member or officer; and where the Independent State of Papua New Guinea or an officer sued in his official capacity, by an officer of the State.
(3) The party shall, in relation to each interrogatory, choose a person who is qualified and has knowledge of the facts.
(2) Where the affidavit is ordered, the Court may, in relation to any or all of the interrogatories, specify by name the person to make it, or the persons from whom the deponent may be chosen.
Sub-rule (3) says “in relation to each interrogatory”. A corporation may therefore need more than one deponent — the finance officer for questions about payments, the site manager for questions about the works. Choosing a single convenient deponent with no knowledge of most of the questions does not comply, and invites an order under sub-rule (2).
Rule 24
(1) Where a party fails to answer an interrogatory sufficiently, the Court may —
(a) if he has made an insufficient answer — order him to make a further answer verified by affidavit in accordance with Rule 23; or
(b) order him, or any of the persons specified in Rule 23(b) to (d), to attend to be orally examined.
(2) This does not limit the powers of the Court under Rule 25.
Oral examination brings the deponent — or the next friend, or the corporation’s officer — before the Court to be questioned. It is a far more uncomfortable process than filing a further written answer, and the prospect of it usually produces a better answer at the first stage.
Rule 25 — the same sanctions as discovery
(1) Where a party defaults in complying with an order under Rule 21 or 24, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit, including — if the party in default is a plaintiff, that the proceedings be stayed or dismissed as to the whole or part of the relief; or, on a writ where the party is a defendant, that his defence be struck out and judgement be entered accordingly.
(3) Where the party has a solicitor and the order is served by leaving a copy at, or posting it to, the solicitor’s office, the solicitor shall, if he fails without reasonable cause to notify the party of the order, be guilty of professional misconduct.
Rule 26 — answers as evidence
(1) A party may tender one or more answers without tendering the others, or part of an answer without the whole.
(2) But the Court may look at the whole of the answers, and if any other answer or part is so connected with the matter tendered that the matter tendered ought not to be used without it, the Court may reject the tender unless that other answer or part is also tendered.
Interrogatories are worth answering carefully because the answers can be put in evidence against you, selectively. Sub-rule (2) is the safeguard against unfairness: a party cannot tender half an answer to create a false impression, because the Court may insist on the qualifying part going in too.
Answers are not automatically evidence — they must be tendered. On admissions generally, which work rather differently, see notices to admit facts.
Sources
- National Court Rules 1983 — O 9 rr 15, 17–27; Forms 35, 36
Before relying on anything here, read the current text of the National Court Rules 1983 and check for later amendments. If a decision matters to you, get advice — start with the Office of the Public Solicitor, or find a firm in the law firms directory.