Supreme Court Rules 1987

(1) A party seeking to orally examine another party in accordance with this Order must serve on that other party a request in writing that the party served consent to be orally examined.

(2) A notice under subrule (1) may nominate an examiner for the purpose of the examination.

(3) A party served with a notice under subrule (1) may, by notice in writing served on the party seeking the examination:

(a) consent to be examined before the examiner nominated;

(b) consent to be examined but not before the examiner nominated; or

(4) Where subrule (3)(b) applies, the party consenting to be examined may state in the notice the name of an examiner before whom the party consents to be examined.

(5) Where subrule (4) applies, the party seeking the examination may, by notice in writing given to the party consenting to be examined, agree to the appointment of the examiner named in the notice under subrule (4).

(6) Where the parties do not agree on an examiner, the party sought to be examined is to be taken to have refused to be examined.

(a) the party sought to be examined has consented under subrule (3)(a) or (b); and

(b) in the case of consent under subrule (3)(b) – the party seeking the examination has agreed to the appointment of an examiner under subrule (5),

the party seeking the examination must file a Memorandum of Agreement that is to be one document consisting of a copy of each of the notices that together constitute the consent and (if applicable) the agreement.

(a) refuses under subrule (3)(c) to be examined; or

(b) is to be taken under subrule (6) to have refused to be examined,

the party seeking the examination may apply to the Court for an order requiring the party to be orally examined in accordance with this Order.

(9) The Court may make an order requiring a party to be orally examined if satisfied that:

(a) the Court would have granted the party seeking the examination leave to serve written interrogatories on the party; and

(b) one or more of the following apply:

(i) it is likely that an oral examination will be less costly to the parties than preparing and answering written interrogatories in relation to the question in respect of which the examination is sought;

(ii) there is some other advantage to the parties that warrants the making of the order;

(iii) the party sought to be examined was taken to have refused to be examined only by virtue of subrule (6).

(10) If the parties cannot agree on an examiner, the Court may appoint a suitably experienced legal practitioner to be the examiner.