The Plaintiff brought a claim against the Defendants following an explosion and large fire caused by ruptured pipes manufactured by the Defendants. The Defendants in turn issued Third Party Claims against various companies, including Technip USA, Inc. (“Technip”). All the parties agreed to a Consent Scheduling Order that provided for a process for the Questioning of third parties.

Despite the Plaintiff providing several notices regarding the Questioning of a Technip employee, with no objections, one Defendant, during the Questioning, took the position that there was no adversity of interest between the Plaintiff and Technip. Subsequently, the Defendant applied to strike out the transcript in relation to the examination of that employee. Applications Judge Farrington dismissed the Application, and the Defendant appealed the Decision.

The Court noted that under Rule 6.14, the standard of review on an Appeal from an Applications Judge’s Decision, where no new evidence had been adduced, was whether the Applications Judge was correct based on the records what was before him. Additionally, Rule 5.17 sets the framework of who may be questioned. The Court also noted that the determination of whether a party is adverse in interest requires the examinations of the Pleadings and the factual context of the case.

Considering that Technip disputed the Defendants’ liability to the Plaintiff in its Third Party Defence, and acknowledging that the Plaintiff followed the procedure set out in the Consent Scheduling Order and provided notice on several occasions without objection from the Defendants, the Court concluded that there was an adversity of interest between the Plaintiff and Technip. 

In the result, the Appeal was dismissed.