CNOOC PETROLEUM NORTH AMERICA ULC v ITP SA

This Action centered on a pipeline failure. The Defendants, referred to as Wood Group, brought an Application to question Dean Kovacs (“Mr. Kovacs”) after the close of Questioning, pursuant to a Complex Case Litigation Plan. Mr. Kovacs was the former chief inspector of the Plaintiff’s Canadian gas operation, but not its corporate representative. Mr. Kovacs’ evidence was provided in response to an Undertaking given during prior Questioning of the corporate representative.

Wood Group argued that they would have been permitted to question Mr. Kovacs pursuant to Rule 5.17, but had no way of knowing there was an issue worth Questioning him on until after receiving the Undertaking response. The Plaintiff argued that Rule 5.30(2) did not permit Questioning of someone other than the person who gave the Undertaking response.

The Court considered Rules 5.1(1), 5.17(1), and 5.30. The Court held that this was an appropriate circumstance in which to exercise discretion, pursuant to Rule 4.14(1). Associate Chief Justice Nixon held that Wood Group should be permitted to question Mr. Kovacs on the Undertaking response in the unique circumstances, but questioning shall be limited to only the Undertaking response.