Discovery produces documents. Interrogatories produce answers. Order 9 Division 2 of the National Court Rules 1983 governs them.
Order 9 Rule 17
(1) Subject to sub-rule (3), where the pleadings between any parties are closed, any of those parties may file and serve on any other of those parties a notice requiring the party served to answer specified interrogatories relating to any matter in question between the interrogating party and the party served.
(2) The notice may require that the answers be verified, and may do so notwithstanding that the interrogating party has previously required them to be answered without verification.
(3) This Rule does not apply to proceedings on a common law claim for damages arising out of the death of, or bodily harm to, any person, or for contribution in respect of such damages.
(4) A notice under this Rule shall be in Form 34.
(5) Subject to sub-rule (2), a party shall not serve more than one notice under sub-rule (1) on the same party without the leave of the Court.
You get one notice. A second requires leave. So the questions must be settled carefully before the notice is served — there is no opportunity to follow up on an unsatisfactory answer as of right.
The exception preserved by the opening words is sub-rule (2): having required answers without verification, you may afterwards require the same interrogatories to be verified. That is not a second set of questions; it is a demand that the existing answers be sworn.
Note also the sub-rule (3) exclusion, which parallels Rule 1(3) for discovery: no interrogatories by notice in death or bodily harm claims. In those cases the route is an order under Rule 21.
Rule 18
(1) A party required to answer shall answer within such time, not being less than 14 days after service of the notice, as may be specified in the notice.
(2) Where verification is not required, they answer by filing and serving a statement in accordance with Rule 22.
(3) Where verification is required, they answer by filing and serving (a) an affidavit verifying a statement in accordance with Rule 22; and (b) the statement so verified, unless already filed and served.
Where a plaintiff claims against two or more defendants and requires a defendant to answer, that defendant shall serve his statement in answer and affidavit (if any) not only on the plaintiff but also on each other defendant who has filed a defence.
The mirror of Rule 4 for discovery, and for the same reason: co-defendants often have interests adverse to each other.
What makes a good interrogatory
- Ask about facts in issue, not about evidence or argument. The test in Rule 17(1) is “relating to any matter in question between” the two parties.
- One fact per question. Compound questions invite evasive answers and are more easily attacked as oppressive.
- Ask what only the other side knows. Interrogatories are most valuable for matters within the opponent’s knowledge — who authorised a payment, when a decision was made, what a company’s internal position was.
- Keep the set short. Under Rule 19(3) the Court shall, on application, make such orders as are necessary to prevent unnecessary interrogatories. A long, speculative set invites exactly that application.
- Do not use them to obtain documents. That is what discovery and notices to produce are for.
Rule 19
(1) The Court may, before or after a party has been required to answer, order that answers shall not be required, or shall be limited to such interrogatories or classes of interrogatories, or to such of the matters in question, as may be specified.
(2) Where a party has been required to answer any interrogatory, the Court may, on application by him, order that an answer shall not be required or limit the extent to which an answer shall be required.
(3) The Court shall, on application, make such orders as are necessary to prevent unnecessary interrogatories or unnecessary answers.
On an application under Rule 19(2) or Rule 21 about a particular interrogatory, the Court may require the applicant to specify on what grounds he objects to answer, and may determine the sufficiency of that objection. If the Court holds the objection insufficient, the applicant shall not be entitled to object to answer that interrogatory in the statement.
So an unsuccessful application does not merely fail — it forecloses the objection. Do not apply unless the ground is solid. See answering interrogatories for the three permitted grounds of objection.
Rule 21 — when the notice route is unavailable
(1) The Court may, at any stage of any proceedings, order any party to file and serve on any other party (whether the interrogating party or not) — (a) a statement in accordance with Rule 22 in answer to interrogatories specified or referred to in the order relating to any matter in question; or (b) such a statement verified by affidavit.
(2) The Court shall not make an order unless satisfied that the order is necessary at the time the order is made.
Death or bodily harm claims, where Rule 17 does not apply at all.
A second set of interrogatories, where leave is needed under Rule 17(5).
Before the close of pleadings, since Rule 21 operates at any stage.
The necessity test in sub-rule (2) mirrors Rule 14 for discovery, and it is a real threshold: the Court must be satisfied the order is necessary at the time it is made, not that it might prove useful later.
Under Order 5 Rule 27, Divisions 1 and 2 of Order 9 apply to a disabled person and to his next friend. And in defamation, Order 8 Rule 91 bars interrogatories as to the defendant’s sources of information or grounds of belief on fair comment and good faith.
Sources
- National Court Rules 1983 — O 5 r 27; O 8 r 91; O 9 rr 1, 4, 14, 17–22; Forms 34–36
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.