The High Court refused an application by Motorola Limited to have a company secretary for three broadband companies examined in court about corrected answers to interrogatories. Mr Justice Charleton said the answers were sufficient and that any dispute about how errors arose, or whether an earlier answer was inconsistent, could be addressed at trial.
The case concerns claims by IBB Internet Services Limited, Irish Broadband Internet Services Limited (trading as Imagine Networks), and Imagine Communications Group Limited. They allege that Motorola delayed rolling out a broadband network and that parts of the network supplied did not function properly. Their claims include breach of contract, negligence and misrepresentation. The judgment did not decide those claims.
The companies say they formed a single economic entity. The written master services agreement was signed by the second plaintiff and later novated to the first. The plaintiffs also allege that the third plaintiff entered a collateral agreement with Motorola. The judgment records that the contract contemplated rollout across 402 sites, with 120 supplied and five included in a test module. The court listed questions about the agreements, the rollout, acceptance of sites and contractual limits on relief as central issues for the eventual trial. It did not determine them.
The dispute before Mr Justice Charleton arose after Motorola served interrogatories in May 2013. The plaintiffs first replied in June. They then served corrected answers in July, describing the changes as typographical and referencing errors. The defendant sought an order requiring the secretary to answer the interrogatories orally, arguing it was unclear which answers were correct and how the admitted errors arose.
The judge said it was probable that the errors resulted from handling hundreds of questions across three companies by reference number, but stressed that this was only a preliminary view. The trial judge could take a different view, and questions could be asked at trial. He said the corrected answers were sworn and the plaintiffs stated they relied on them as fact. The rule invoked by Motorola concerned answers that were omitted or insufficient; it did not permit a pre-trial examination simply to test whether an answer was truthful.
The judgment said corrections to interrogatory answers generally do not require court leave. Errors should be corrected promptly, with an explanation where new evidence changes the factual account. If an answer is missing or insufficient, the usual remedy is a further affidavit directed to the specific question. Oral examination should be rare, confined to particular unanswered or insufficient questions, and considered only when alternative remedies are exhausted or futile. A general examination before trial is not permitted.
The court refused Motorola’s motion and awarded costs. The underlying action had not yet reached discovery when the judgment was delivered.