Quinto v Giltrap

 

A. Introduction 

 

1. This was a contested application for leave to ask written questions (previously known as ‘interrogatories’).      

 

B. The Claim  

 

2. The Claimant Jesse Quinto as the Administrator of the estates of Stephen and Nicola Quinto (deceased) is claiming damages and compensation for personal injuries arising from the assault by the Defendant Nigel John Giltrap of the two deceased. The Claim is disputed.       

 

C. The Application and Submissions  

 

3. On 5 September 2023, Mr Giltrap filed Application for Permission to Ask Claimant Written Questions seeking the following orders (the ‘Application’):  

 

 

 

 

4. Attachment “A” to the Application contains 19 written questions.        

 

5. The grounds of the Application are that the overriding objective of the CPR is to enable courts to deal with cases justly and in ways that are proportionate to the amount of money involved and a large sum of money is at stake in the proceeding; to ensure that all parties are on an even footing and to save expense; to better identify the issues between the parties and to provide better facts; and that the questions relate to matters at issue between the parties.   

 

6. On 4 October 2023, Mr Quinto filed submissions opposing the Application. Mr Quinto objected globally to the written questions as not being reasonably necessary to enable the court to decide the matters at issue between the parties, that there is likely to be a simpler and cheaper way available at trial to prove the matters asked about, and that the questions are vexatious and oppressive. He also made additional specific objections to each of the 19 written questions.  

 

D. Discussion   

 

7. Rules 8.19  and 8.20 of the CPR provide as follows:  

 

 

 

 

 

(4) The written application must be filed and served on the other party at least 3 days before the hearing date.   

 

8. The annotation to rule 8.19 of the CPR in Jenshel’s Civil Court Practice explains the function of written questions as follows:   

 

 

9. The Court of Appeal stated in Cyclamen Ltd v Port Vila Municipal Council [2006] VUCA 20 at p. 7 as follows:     

 

 

10. Subrules 8.24(2) and (4) of the CPR provide as follows:   

 

 

11. Mr Quinto’s objections to the written questions include objections on the grounds set out in rule 8.24(2)(b)-(d) of the CPR.   

 

12. Written questions 1, 3, 6 and 14 relate to the credibility of one or other witness. For example, question 6 asks, “Have you viewed the video of the assault and if so, would you agree that at para. 9 of the sworn statement of Nicola Quinto dated 21 July 2020 is a gross exaggeration?” Such questions are best asked in cross-examination, which is the simpler and cheaper way available at the trial to prove the matters asked about (rule 8.24(2)(c), CPR). I therefore agree with the objections made to these questions and they need not be answered.  

 

13. Questions 5 and 12 refer to matters which if not already in evidence, must first be put into evidence and then questions either put to a witness in cross-examination or addressed in closing submissions. For example, question 12 sets out what is stated in a website. What is stated in the website needs to be put into evidence, and then questions be put in cross-examination or submissions made in closing. I therefore consider there are simpler and cheaper ways available at trial to prove the matters asked about and these questions need not be answered (rule 8.24(2)(c), CPR).   

 

14. Question 7 asks, “Would you agree that the undated letter from Hope Wellness Centre named “SQ 36” lacks factual content and should be deemed as hearsay…?” This is a matter for either objection as to the admissibility of that evidence or for closing submissions. Accordingly, there are simpler and cheaper ways available at trial to prove the matters asked about and these questions need not be answered (rule 8.24(2)(c), CPR).   

 

15. The functions of written questions include to obtain admissions to support the case of the questioning party, or which damage the case of the party that is questioned. I consider that the effect of questions 2, 4, 8, 9-11, 13 and 15-18, however, would be to support the questioned party to prove his case. Any gaps or perceived deficiencies in Mr Quinto’s evidence are a matter for Mr Giltrap to address in closing submissions. Accordingly, I consider that these questions are not reasonably necessary to enable the court to decide the issues between the parties and they need not be answered (rule 8.24(2)(b), CPR).   

 

16. Question 19 refers to Mr Quinto’s (deceased) obituary and asks what the complications that he died from were. This question does not relate to a matter in issue and need not be answered (rule 8.24(2)(a), CPR).  

 

17. For the reasons given, none of the written questions need to be answered and the Application must therefore be declined and dismissed.   

 

E. Result and Decision   

 

18. The Defendant’s Application for Permission to Ask Claimant Written Questions filed on 5 September 2023 is declined and dismissed.  

 

19. The costs of the Application are reserved.