This was an application by the defendants for an order that the plaintiff serve further answers to their interrogatories. The plaintiff had brought a claim against the defendants alleging that she had contracted lung disease by smoking their cigarettes.
The defendants complained that the plaintiff's answers to the interrogatories were unwieldy, non-responsive and evasive. The answers ran into several hundred pages and the plaintiff had used a formulaic response to many questions.
The judge agreed with the defendant that the way in which the plaintiff had answered the interrogatories led to obfuscation and was an "insoluble impediment" to their use. He therefore ordered that the plaintiff serve further answers.
This decision is one of 5 procedural decisions in these proceedings. The plaintiff ultimately discontinued the case. See also: Cremona v. Philip Morris & Ors [1996] VicSC 241; Cremona v. Philip Morris & Ors [1996] VicSC 563; Cremona v. Philip Morris & Ors [1997] VicSC 123; and Cremona v. Philip Morris & Ors [1997] VicSC 552.
An individual or organization may seek civil damages against a tobacco company based on the claim that the use of tobacco products causes disease or death. Some of these cases will relate to general tobacco products, while others will relate to specific subcategories of tobacco products--for example, light or low products, menthol or other flavored products. Additionally, there may be cases relating to exposure to secondhand smoke.
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.
This was an application by the defendants for an order that the plaintiff serve further answers to their interrogatories. The plaintiff had brought a claim against the defendants alleging that she had contracted lung disease by smoking their cigarettes.
The defendants complained that the plaintiff's answers to the interrogatories were unwieldy, non-responsive and evasive. The answers ran into several hundred pages and the plaintiff had used a formulaic response to many questions.
The judge agreed with the defendant that the way in which the plaintiff had answered the interrogatories led to obfuscation and was an "insoluble impediment" to their use. He therefore ordered that the plaintiff serve further answers.
This decision is one of 5 procedural decisions in these proceedings. The plaintiff ultimately discontinued the case. See also: Cremona v. Philip Morris & Ors [1996] VicSC 241; Cremona v. Philip Morris & Ors [1996] VicSC 563; Cremona v. Philip Morris & Ors [1997] VicSC 123; and Cremona v. Philip Morris & Ors [1997] VicSC 552.