Interrogatories: Questions, Answers and Objections

What Interrogatories Ask a Party to Do

A party answers specified factual questions about matters in issue. Start with the named parties, the pleaded dispute and the stage the proceeding has reached.

Suppose a company alleges that its former director authorised an unauthorised payment. The statement proves that money left the account, but it may leave the person giving the instruction unidentified. A focused interrogatory can seek that person’s identity or the instruction given.

Keep the different tasks separate. Interrogatories seek answers. Financial discovery in civil litigation obtains documents through the applicable production process. Oral examination involves spoken questions under its own procedure. If the allegation itself needs clarification, further particulars address the case to be met.

Check Permission and Proportionality

Choose the court-specific route before preparing questions for service. These two routes illustrate why one national sequence would mislead.

Federal Court

Under Part 21 of the Federal Court Rules, apply for an order with an affidavit annexing the proposed questions. Rule 21.02 postpones the application until 14 days after pleadings close. Where Division 20.2 discovery is ordered, the parties must also have served their lists of documents.

Record which pleaded issue each question addresses. Read the applicable practice note and existing directions alongside the rule, then seek an order setting the questions and compliance time.

New South Wales

The Judicial Commission’s interrogatories guidance explains the UCPR Part 22 route. An order is required and must be necessary when made. The proposed questions accompany the application. Availability also depends on the court and division.

For Supreme Court Commercial List proceedings, Practice Note SC Eq 3 requires proof of necessity for interrogatories. Use that list’s directions process and the current UCPR forms, not the Federal Court application sequence.

Decide Whether the Questions Will Resolve a Fact

For each proposed question, record the missing fact and how the answer would affect preparation or proof. Compare the cost of obtaining it with its likely use.

If the bank record already identifies the transfer amount, asking for that amount again may add little. Identifying an oral payment instruction could resolve something the statement cannot show. Consider whether an admission, an existing document or a focused voluntary answer would settle the point with less work.

A lengthy request across every company transaction needs a different justification from four questions about one pleaded payment. Explain the scope and the enquiries needed. There is no general entitlement to unlimited questions.

Draft Questions From the Financial Issues

Draft one factual issue per question and tie it to an identified allegation. The following fictional example assumes paragraph 18 pleads an unauthorised $84,000 transfer from Harbour Services Pty Ltd to Cedar Projects Pty Ltd.

Define “Transfer A” by its bank reference, source account and amount in the proposed questions. Check that this identifies one transaction. The questions could then ask:

1. Who authorised Transfer A?
2. In what capacity did the person identified in answer 1 act when authorising Transfer A?
3. What instruction did that person give for Transfer A?
4. What purpose did that person state for Transfer A?

These are drafting examples for a permission application, not questions already approved by a court. Adapt them to the responding party and the issue actually pleaded.

“Why did you dishonestly divert $84,000 and breach your duties?” assumes wrongdoing and combines factual and legal propositions. The separate questions seek the underlying events without requiring agreement with that characterisation.

“Identify the instruction for Transfer A” seeks an answer. “Attach every record of every payment you ever authorised” demands documents and expands the scope. Use the appropriate production route for records needed to test the answer.

Respond With Answers or Supported Objections

Prepare the response against the exact questions the order requires. Keep the due date and any verification directions visible throughout the work.

1. Compare the served questions with the order. Resolve any difference before answering a substituted or expanded set.
2. Obtain instructions from people with relevant knowledge. Locate the payment record and any instruction, approval or accounting entry that informs the answer.
3. Select the person permitted to verify the response. For a corporate Federal Court party, rule 21.04 provides for an officer who knows the facts, subject to any order specifying the person.
4. Draft a separate answer or supported objection for each question. Reconcile the wording with the witness’s knowledge and the records before execution.
5. Complete the required oath or affirmation and filing or service steps. Retain the executed version and proof of delivery.

In the Federal Court, rule 21.03 requires substantive answers or objections with brief supporting facts. A party can object on privilege grounds. The other grounds concern an issue outside the disputed pleadings or a vexatious or oppressive question. File Form 40 answers and a verifying affidavit, then serve the required parties.

For NSW, rule 22.3 requires each question and its substantive answer. Affidavit verification follows the order. The official UCPR forms include Form 21 interrogatories and Form 22 answers. Under rule 22.2, a party can object because the answer could disclose privileged information. Other grounds concern relevance to a matter in issue or a vexatious or oppressive question.

Explain a burden objection by reference to the particular question and the work it demands. A response stating only “too difficult” does not identify why the applicable ground is engaged. Keep privileged legal advice out of the factual explanation supporting the objection.

If enquiries do not establish who gave an instruction, describe the inability to answer accurately and the enquiries undertaken. Identify the records checked and people consulted as appropriate. Do not substitute a guessed counterparty or motive for the missing fact. Distinguish a genuine lack of knowledge after enquiries from a refusal to answer.

Compare the Answers With Source Records

Test each answer against the financial records and retain the unresolved difference. A schedule keeps the factual answer separate from the inference a legal team proposes to draw.

Fictional Answer-Testing Schedule

The matching $84,000 receipt supports a question about repayment. Its amount alone does not establish that it discharged the same debt. Compare the account holders, payment reference and loan records. A bank entry also does not establish the legal authority for making the payment.

FinTrace saves legal teams and forensic accountants hours of statement conversion and review by consolidating supplied PDFs into a searchable, categorised Excel ledger. Its findings report cites the source PDF filename and page, so the records behind a disputed transfer are directly at hand. Use those outputs to populate the source-record column while keeping the party’s sworn account and the solicitor’s analysis distinct.

Preserve the provenance of the underlying bank statements as evidence. Record whether a discrepancy concerns the payment itself, its explanation or missing supporting material.

For an incomplete Federal Court answer, rule 21.05 permits an application for a sufficient verified answer or oral interrogation. In NSW, use rule 22.4 for insufficient answers. Identify the exact omission first. A focused request can seek clarification, but it does not replace a required application or extend an order’s deadline.

Before closing the task, compare the executed answers with the order question by question. Confirm the required verification, service and filing records. List each disputed fact still requiring proof and preserve applicable confidentiality orders and restrictions on collateral use. Keep the tender decision separate: receiving an answer does not itself put it into evidence at trial.