Interrogatories in Personal Injury Claims

Quick Reference: Interrogatories at a Glance

Procedural source

Order 31, rr. 1–11 RSC (Superior Courts); Order 32, rr. 9–19 CCR (Circuit Court); Order 63A r. 13 RSC (Commercial); Order 63B r. 12 RSC (Competition)

Current rules made by

S.I. No. 363 of 2024 (Superior Courts) and S.I. No. 200 of 2025 (Circuit Court)

In force

31 July 2024 (Superior Courts); 13 June 2025 (Circuit Court)

Forms

Form No. 8 (interrogatories) and Form No. 9 (answer) — Appendix C, RSC; Form 57A / 57B — Circuit Court

Number without leave

Up to 20 per set, one set per party (Commercial List uncapped)

Time to answer

21 days from delivery

Motion to compel

Within 14 days of objection or insufficient answer (Order 31 r. 7)

Primary source

irishstatutebook.ie — SI 363/2024 · irishstatutebook.ie — SI 200/2025

Contents

What Interrogatories Are in Irish Civil Procedure

Interrogatories are written questions answered on affidavit. An interrogatory is a written question delivered by one party to another in litigation, which the receiving party must answer in a sworn affidavit and which may be used as evidence at trial. In Ireland, interrogatories are governed by Order 31 of the Rules of the Superior Courts (as substituted by S.I. No. 363 of 2024) in the High Court, and by Order 32 of the Circuit Court Rules (as substituted by S.I. No. 200 of 2025) in the Circuit Court.

The two purposes of interrogatories were settled long before the 2024 reform. In Mercantile Credit Co of Ireland Ltd v Heelan [1994] 2 IR 105, Costello J identified the two recognised purposes as (i) obtaining information about facts in issue and (ii) obtaining admissions. Lynch J in Bula Ltd v Tara Mines Ltd [1995] 1 ILRM 401 at p.405 then refined the test, holding that interrogatories are appropriate where the requested party has the knowledge or the ability to prove facts important to be established in aid of the opposing party's case where that opposing party does not have such knowledge or ability either at all or without undue difficulty.

The court's foundational endorsement of the procedure came in 1967. In J & L.S. Goodbody Ltd v The Clyde Shipping Company Ltd (Supreme Court, Walsh J, 9 May 1967), the Supreme Court described interrogatories as a tool that "should be used more often than they are" and stated that robust questions could be posed on a much wider basis than is generally appreciated. Kelly J in McCabe v Irish Life Assurance plc [2015] IECA 239 revived this language, characterising interrogatories as the "Cinderella" of pre-trial procedures — a powerful and inexpensive tool that practitioners had long failed to use.

"Interrogatories may be served in relation to facts directly in issue, but also in respect of facts the existence or non-existence of which is relevant to the existence or non-existence of facts directly in issue. The right to serve interrogatories is not confined to facts which are in the peculiar knowledge of the other party. Rather, they may also be used for the purpose of obtaining an admission from the other side."

— Court of Appeal in McCabe v Irish Life Assurance plc [2015] 1 IR 346, summarising Goodbody v Clyde Shipping

Why Interrogatories Matter in Personal Injury Litigation

Interrogatories narrow issues that documents and pleadings cannot. Most personal injury actions reach a point at which the plaintiff has pleaded a Statement of Claim, the defendant has filed a Defence, and the issues in dispute remain insufficiently defined for trial preparation. The standard responses — replies to particulars, voluntary discovery, expert reports — are slow, expensive, and often produce documents from which the answer must still be inferred. Interrogatories bypass that chain. They put a single factual question directly to the opposing party and require a sworn yes-or-no or short factual answer.

The personal injury context is well-suited to this technique. The defendant in a typical workplace claim knows whether a machine was maintained and on what date. The defendant in a public liability claim knows when an area was last inspected. The defendant hospital in a clinical negligence claim knows whether a test result was reviewed before the index intervention. In each of those scenarios, the plaintiff is asked to prove a fact that lies in the defendant's exclusive knowledge. Interrogatories convert that asymmetry into a sworn answer.

Following the 2024 reform, Irish courts have signalled increased favour for the procedure in personal injury proceedings. In O'Sullivan (a minor) v O'Riordan and Mercy University Hospital Cork [2023] IECA 165, the Court of Appeal (Noonan J) observed that the particular relevance of interrogatories in clinical negligence cases lay in the fact that "more often than not, the plaintiff will have little or no knowledge of what befell them while under the care of the defendant(s)". That observation extends naturally beyond clinical negligence to any personal injury claim where the defendant controls the key facts.

The 2024 and 2025 Rule Changes Explained

Since 31 July 2024 no leave of the court is required for a set of twenty interrogatories or fewer. Before that date, a party outside the Commercial List and Competition List had to apply to the High Court for leave before serving any interrogatory. The application was time-consuming, the leave threshold was high, and as a result the procedure fell into disuse outside specialist lists. S.I. No. 363 of 2024 (Rules of the Superior Courts (Interrogatories) 2024) substituted rules 1 to 11 of Order 31 in their entirety. The new rules abolish the leave requirement for a single set of up to twenty interrogatories delivered after the Statement of Claim (by a plaintiff) or after the Defence (by a defendant).

The Circuit Court followed eleven months later. S.I. No. 200 of 2025 (Circuit Court Rules (Interrogatories) 2025) substituted rule 9 of Order 32 with a new set of rules 9 to 19, in force from 13 June 2025. The Circuit Court regime is now substantially aligned with the Superior Courts regime, with two material differences: in the Circuit Court, interrogatories must be delivered before service of the Notice of Trial; and the County Registrar is empowered, in parallel with the Court, to determine objections and compel answers.

Pre-reform regime compared with the current post-2024 / post-2025 regime

Feature	Pre-31 July 2024 (Superior Courts)	Post-31 July 2024 (Superior Courts)	Post-13 June 2025 (Circuit Court)
Leave requirement	Required for non-commercial / non-fraud cases	Not required for ≤ 20 interrogatories in a single set	Not required for ≤ 20 interrogatories in a single set
Trigger point	After delivery of Defence	After Statement of Claim (plaintiff) or Defence (defendant)	Same — but must precede Notice of Trial
Time to answer	10 days (often extended)	21 days on affidavit	21 days on affidavit
Statement of reasons	Not mandated in the rules	Mandatory under Order 31 r. 2	Mandatory under Order 32 r. 10(3)
Court empowered to determine objection	Court only	Court only	Court or County Registrar

One technical point that bears emphasis: the new rules apply retrospectively to proceedings commenced both before and after the rules came into operation. Long-running personal injury and clinical negligence actions that pre-date the reform fall within the new regime from the date their next interrogatory is served. The change in regime is not a feature only of new proceedings.

How the Irish Rules on Interrogatories Have Evolved

The current rule rests on six decades of incremental reform. The chronology below traces the principal milestones in the development of the Irish interrogatories regime, from the original codification in 1986 through the substantive reforms of 2024 and 2025. The timeline is relevant in two practical respects: transitional cases commenced before the reforms now fall under the new rules, and several authorities decided under the pre-reform regime remain doctrinally relevant.

Chronological development of the Irish interrogatories regime

Date	Instrument / Event	Effect on interrogatories
1986	Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (S.I. No. 15 of 1986)	Original Order 31 codified — leave requirement for non-fraud / non-breach-of-trust cases; carried over from earlier RSC traditions.
2001	Circuit Court Rules 2001 (S.I. No. 510 of 2001)	Order 32 of the Circuit Court Rules made — leave-based regime for interrogatories below the Superior Court threshold.
2004	Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004	Sections 13 (defence content), 14 (verifying affidavit), 25 (false statements) and 26 (dismissal for false evidence) created the special PI affidavit regime within which interrogatory answers now sit.
Commercial List era (post-2004)	Order 63A RSC	Commercial Court parties permitted to deliver interrogatories without leave — the only general exception to the leave requirement until 2024.
13 May 2024	Superior Courts Rules Committee resolution	SI 363/2024 made by the Rules Committee.
17 July 2024	Ministerial concurrence	Minister for Justice (then Helen McEntee TD) concurred in the making of SI 363/2024, the required step under the Courts of Justice Acts 1924–1961.
31 July 2024	S.I. No. 363 of 2024 — Rules of the Superior Courts (Interrogatories) 2024	Rules 1–11 of Order 31 substituted; rule 13 of Order 63A substituted; rule 12 of Order 63B substituted; Form No. 8 and Form No. 9 substituted. Leave requirement abolished for ≤ 20 interrogatories. 21-day response window introduced.
5 March 2025	Circuit Court Rules Committee resolution	SI 200/2025 made by the Circuit Court Rules Committee (chaired by Patricia Ryan).
8 April 2025	Practice Directions HC131 + HC132	President of the High Court (Barniville P) issued the Clinical Negligence List Practice Directions, establishing the dedicated list within which clinical negligence interrogatories applications are heard.
28 April 2025	Commencement of HC131 + HC132	Clinical Negligence List operational; pre-trial readiness regime within which interrogatories now sit.
21 May 2025	Ministerial concurrence	Minister for Justice (Jim O'Callaghan TD) concurred in the making of SI 200/2025.
13 June 2025	S.I. No. 200 of 2025 — Circuit Court Rules (Interrogatories) 2025	Rule 9 of Order 32 substituted with new rules 9–19; Circuit Court regime aligned with Superior Courts post-SI 363/2024; deadline cap at Notice of Trial introduced; County Registrar empowered alongside Court.

One practical implication of the chronology bears emphasis. The two reforms differ on retrospective application. SI 363/2024 (Order 31 RSC) applies in proceedings commenced both before and from 31 July 2024, so a plaintiff in a clinical negligence case commenced in 2018 in the High Court may now deliver twenty interrogatories without leave. SI 200/2025 (Order 32 CCR) is prospective only — it applies in proceedings commenced from 13 June 2025 onwards. Circuit Court proceedings commenced before that date remain subject to the pre-reform Order 32 regime, including the leave requirement.

Order 31 RSC in Detail (Superior Courts)

The substituted Order 31 sets out a self-executing procedure subject to drafting discipline. The rules now provide a complete code: when interrogatories may be delivered, what they must look like, what they may not ask, how the receiving party must answer, when objections may be raised, and what the court can do if either side acts unreasonably. The drafting controls in rule 2 are the price of the abolished leave requirement — the court no longer screens questions in advance, so the rules themselves must do that work.

Rule 1 — When and how interrogatories may be delivered

Under the substituted rule 1, an "interrogating party" may deliver, without prior leave of the court, a single set of no more than twenty interrogatories on any other party at any time after delivery of the Statement of Claim (where the interrogating party is the plaintiff) or after delivery of the Defence (where the interrogating party is the defendant). The interrogatories must be in writing, in Form No. 8 in Appendix C to the Rules of the Superior Courts, addressed to the interrogated party, and delivered with each interrogatory or group of interrogatories accompanied by a brief statement of reasons.

A second set of interrogatories, or a set containing more than twenty individual questions, may only be delivered with leave of the court. The leave application is made on motion grounded on an affidavit which exhibits the proposed interrogatories and explains why the further set is necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs.

Rule 2 — What questions are permitted

Rule 2 codifies what Irish case law had long required. Interrogatories must be confined to questions as to facts in issue in the proceedings or facts which are reasonably relevant to establishing facts in issue. They must not extend to the evidence by which such facts may be proved. They must be capable of an affirmative or negative answer or a short statement of fact. And the answers must be necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs. A statement of reasons setting out why each interrogatory or group of interrogatories meets the "necessity" test must accompany the set.

The line between "fact in issue" and "evidence proving the fact" is the most-litigated boundary. In McCabe v Irish Life Assurance plc [2015] IECA 239, Kelly J emphasised that interrogatories and their answers must be "crystal clear", a formulation that the courts have applied consistently since. In Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd (in special liquidation) v Fitzpatrick [2017] IEHC 715, Baker J added that interrogatories must be both relevant and necessary, and that fairness to the interrogated party is an express requirement of the rule.

"The delivery of interrogatories is a pre-trial disclosure procedure which is greatly underutilised despite strong encouragement from the Supreme Court as far back as the judgment of Walsh J in J & L.S. Goodbody Ltd v The Clyde Shipping Company Ltd."

— Kelly J in McCabe v Irish Life Assurance plc [2015] IECA 239; [2015] 1 IR 346

Working examples of a Statement of Reasons

The "statement of reasons" obligation under rule 2 is the most-misunderstood feature of the new regime. The wording need not be elaborate, but it must explain why the answer is necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs — not merely relevant. Two illustrative examples for personal injury practice:

Verbatim wording required by Form No. 8

The interrogatories themselves are delivered in Form No. 8 in Appendix C to the Rules of the Superior Courts, as substituted by SI 363/2024. The form requires a fixed preamble immediately after the title and party block. In substance, the preamble must state that "answers to each of the following [groups of] interrogatories are necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs, for the following reasons". The individual numbered interrogatories then follow, each accompanied by its brief statement of reasons. The document must conclude with a penal notice warning the opposing party of the consequences of non-compliance — substantively, that if the party fails to answer, or fails to answer sufficiently, on affidavit within 21 days, the interrogating party may apply to the Court pursuant to Order 31 r. 7 for an order to compel the delivery of answers or further answers or for any other appropriate relief.

Verbatim wording required by Form No. 9

The answer is delivered in Form No. 9 in Appendix C, as substituted by SI 363/2024. Three structural points are easily missed. First, the deponent must transcribe each interrogatory in full immediately before each answer — a simple numbered list of answers does not comply. Second, where the deponent is a corporate officer (typical for a defendant hospital or employer), the deponent must state their office or capacity and must set out their "means of knowledge and any inquiries made" to ascertain the facts answered. Third, where the deponent objects to a particular interrogatory rather than answering, the objection must be set out in a separate notice of objection and referred to in the answering affidavit using the formal exhibiting wording prescribed by the rule. The affidavit must be sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths in the usual way.

Rule 7 — Compelling further or better answers

Where the interrogating party considers that an answer is evasive, incomplete, or insufficient, or that an objection raised by the answering party is not well-founded, rule 7 permits an application within fourteen days of delivery of the answering affidavit (or of the notice of objection) for an order compelling further answers. The application is made by motion on notice. The court may order the answering party to answer further on affidavit, to answer further by viva voce examination before a judge or the Master, or to make further admissions.

The supporting affidavit on a motion to compel must identify, in numbered correspondence with the interrogatories themselves, each answer said to be deficient and the basis for that contention. Where the deficiency is evasiveness, the affidavit should typically exhibit the original interrogatory, the answer received, and a short explanation of why the answer fails to address the question put. Where the deficiency is an unsustainable objection, the affidavit should exhibit the notice of objection and explain why the ground relied on does not satisfy the requirements of rule 5 or fall within one of the court-determination categories in rule 9(b). A blanket "the answers are insufficient" affidavit, without item-by-item particularisation, invites the same procedural criticism the rules are designed to address.

Rule 9 — Court powers on the hearing of an application

On the hearing of any motion in relation to interrogatories — whether to compel further answers, to determine an objection, or to seek leave for a second set — rule 9 sets out the court's powers. The court may direct any further answer to be given on affidavit, may order the interrogated party to attend before a judge or the Master for viva voce examination, may order fresh interrogatories to be delivered, may order further particulars, or may order the production of any document referred to in an answer. The court may also determine that the party is not required to reply to interrogatories which are delivered unreasonably or vexatiously, are prolix, oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous, might prejudice a fair hearing of the issues between the parties, or might more appropriately be admitted on cross-examination of a witness at trial.

Rule 11 — Costs sanction for unreasonable interrogatories

Rule 11 preserves the long-standing costs sanction. Where the court is satisfied that interrogatories have been delivered unreasonably or vexatiously, or that any answer is insufficient, the court may make any costs order it considers appropriate. The default sanction is that the costs occasioned by the unreasonable interrogatories are awarded against the party who delivered them "in any event" — that is, regardless of the eventual outcome of the substantive proceedings. The same sanction may be applied to a party who provides an insufficient answer.

Order 32 CCR — the Circuit Court Regime

The Circuit Court regime mirrors Order 31 with two material differences. Under S.I. No. 200 of 2025, which came into operation on 13 June 2025, rule 9 of Order 32 was substituted by new rules 9 to 19. The structure of the new rules closely tracks the substituted Order 31. The twenty-interrogatory cap without leave, the statement-of-reasons obligation, the 21-day window to answer, and the costs sanction all apply.

The first material difference is timing. In the Circuit Court, interrogatories must be delivered before service of the Notice of Trial. This is significant because the Circuit Court is the venue for the bulk of Irish personal injury litigation below the High Court jurisdictional threshold. The deadline imposes a discipline that is absent from the Superior Courts: practitioners working in the Circuit Court must identify the issues for interrogatory before they apply to fix the case for hearing.

The second material difference is the role of the County Registrar. Under Order 32 r. 17 (as substituted), the County Registrar is empowered in parallel with the Court on the hearing of a motion under rule 15 — that is, to determine whether the interrogated party is required to answer further, by affidavit or by viva voce examination, and to determine that the interrogated party is not required to answer any interrogatory falling within the categories in rule 17(b). The Registrar may also extend the 21-day window for delivery of an answer or notice of objection under rule 12, and may make an order requiring a particular officer of a corporate body to answer particular interrogatories under rule 10(2). This brings the interrogatory regime within the case management functions of the Registrar and reduces the need for full motion hearings before the County Court judge.

The Registrar's jurisdiction is concurrent, not exclusive. A party who prefers to bring an objections motion directly before the Circuit Court judge may still do so, and complex objections — particularly those involving disputed factual premises, allegations of oppression, or fair-hearing concerns under rule 17(b)(iii) — may sit more comfortably with the judge. Routine compliance issues, however, are now efficiently disposed of at Registrar level. The 14-day window for a motion to compel further answers runs identically whether the application is made to the Registrar or the Court.

A third Circuit-Court-only feature of the reformed regime is the express provision for non-party interrogatories in Order 32 r. 19 CCR. The rule allows the Court or the County Registrar, on the application of a party, to direct a non-party to answer interrogatories, make discovery of documents, or permit inspection of documents where that non-party appears likely to have relevant documents or evidence. Voluntary discovery must be requested first. The provisions of Order 32 apply mutatis mutandis to the non-party. The applicant must indemnify the non-party in respect of reasonable costs incurred, which are then deemed to be costs of that party in the proceedings. Order 31 RSC contains a parallel non-party discovery mechanism in Order 31 r. 29 RSC, but only the Circuit Court reform expressly extends the procedure to interrogatories in addition to documentary discovery.

Comparison of the prescribed forms — Superior Courts and Circuit Court

Feature	Superior Courts	Circuit Court
Interrogatories form	Form No. 8, Appendix C, RSC (substituted by SI 363/2024)	Form 57A, Schedule of Forms (substituted by SI 200/2025)
Answer form	Form No. 9, Appendix C, RSC (substituted by SI 363/2024)	Form 57B, Schedule of Forms (substituted by SI 200/2025)
Penal-notice rule reference	Order 31 r. 7 RSC	Order 32 r. 15 CCR
Forum addressed in title	"The High Court"	"The Circuit Court — [Circuit] Circuit, Record No. ___"
Available primary source	Appendix C — courts.ie	Schedule of Forms appended to SI 200/2025

The substantive structure of Form 57A mirrors Form No. 8: title block, mandatory preamble explaining why the answers are necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs, numbered interrogatories each with a brief statement of reasons, and a penal notice warning the opposing party of the rule 13 motion-to-compel consequence of non-answer. Form 57B mirrors Form No. 9: title block, sworn declaration, transcribed interrogatory followed by answer or formal objection, and exhibiting reference where a separate notice of objection has been delivered. The procedural difference is one of forum and rule reference rather than substance.

Commercial Court and Competition List Rules

Commercial List and Competition List proceedings are not bound by the twenty-interrogatory cap. Order 63A r. 13 RSC (Commercial List) and Order 63B r. 12 RSC (Competition List) were each substituted by S.I. No. 363 of 2024. Both apply rules 2, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of Order 31 to interrogatories delivered in their respective lists, but neither applies the twenty-question cap in rule 3. Commercial and Competition List parties have therefore retained the historic freedom to deliver interrogatories without numerical limit — provided, as always, that each question complies with the rule 2 criteria.

This distinction matters where a personal injury claim is also a commercial-list candidate, which is rare but not unknown — for example, large multi-party claims involving allegations of corporate fraud or insurance non-disclosure adjacent to the injury claim. Where a personal injury claim sits exclusively in the general High Court list or the Circuit Court, the twenty-interrogatory cap applies.

How the Irish Position Differs from the Position in the United Kingdom

Interrogatories no longer exist in England and Wales. In Ireland, written interrogatories remain a live pre-trial procedure governed by Order 31 RSC and Order 32 CCR as substituted by SI 363/2024 and SI 200/2025. This differs from the position in England and Wales, where the procedure was abolished by the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 and replaced by the more limited mechanism of a "request for further information" under Part 18 CPR. The English regime is narrower in scope, does not require sworn answers on affidavit, and does not carry the same costs sanction. Practitioners should treat English authority on "interrogatories" as historical only when applying the rule in Ireland.

The position in Northern Ireland is closer to the Irish regime. Order 26 of the Rules of the Court of Judicature (Northern Ireland) 1980 provides for interrogatories with leave of the court in substantially the same form as the Irish pre-2024 regime. Northern Ireland has not adopted the SI 363/2024 reform, and the leave requirement therefore remains in force there. Practitioners involved in cross-border personal injury litigation — most commonly road traffic claims with a Northern Ireland nexus — should be alert to the different procedural treatment.

The historical English root of the Irish doctrine is acknowledged. The two-purpose doctrine for interrogatories (information and admissions) was articulated by the Court of Chancery in Attorney-General v Gaskill (1882) 20 Ch D 519, and received into Irish procedure in the early twentieth century. The Supreme Court's modern endorsement in J & L.S. Goodbody Ltd v The Clyde Shipping Company Ltd in 1967 expressly drew on the English line of authority. The doctrine is therefore common-law-rooted, but its current Irish form is governed exclusively by the substituted Order 31 and Order 32 — not by any English procedural source.

Leading Cases Interpreting Order 31

Four Irish authorities define the modern law on interrogatories. The current rule reflects nearly six decades of judicial commentary on when and how the procedure should be used. The cases below are the principal authorities a practitioner should expect to cite in any contested interrogatories motion, in chronological order of decision.

"The fact that an issue may be the subject of expert evidence at trial does not, in my view, preclude the possibility that discovery of documents relevant to the issue may be properly sought in advance of the trial."

— Butler J in Egan v Castlerea Co-operative Livestock Mart Ltd [2023] IECA 240

"More often than not, the plaintiff will have little or no knowledge of what befell them while under the care of the defendant(s)."

— Noonan J in O'Sullivan v O'Riordan [2023] IECA 165

Interrogatories in Personal Injury Practice

Interrogatories work best where one party controls the facts. In personal injury proceedings the optimal moment for interrogatories is the period between delivery of the Defence and the issue of expert reports — typically four to eight weeks after the Defence has been filed. Issued at that stage, interrogatories can narrow contested issues before significant cost is incurred on discovery and expert evidence.

The plaintiff-side applications generally fall into five categories. In workplace accident claims, interrogatories are used to establish whether a safety system was in operation, when training was last delivered, whether the machine had a history of failure, and whether CCTV existed at the date of the accident. In road traffic claims, interrogatories may probe the defendant driver's account of an event, the date of insurance renewal, or the chain of registered ownership. In public liability claims, interrogatories typically address inspection regimes — when an area was last inspected, by whom, what was found. In product liability claims, interrogatories can extract dates of manufacture, batch numbers, prior complaint history, and the existence of recall procedures. In clinical negligence claims (treated separately below), interrogatories are used to pin down clinical decisions, consent processes, and the identity of treating clinicians.

Defendant-side applications follow a different pattern. The defendant in a personal injury claim typically uses interrogatories to probe pre-existing conditions, prior claims history, employment history, mitigation of loss, and (where appropriate) social media activity. Each of these is targeted at the credibility of the plaintiff's verifying affidavit under section 14 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 — a regime treated separately below. A defendant who can extract a sworn admission inconsistent with the verifying affidavit may build a foundation for a section 26 application to dismiss for false or misleading evidence.

One drafting principle drawn from the case law is non-negotiable. Interrogatories must be capable of an affirmative or negative answer or a short statement of fact. They must not be multifaceted, must not seek opinions, and must not require the answering party to accept disputed premises. The Court of Appeal in O'Sullivan refused twenty-one of the twenty-nine interrogatories proposed in that case, and reformulated several others, precisely because they failed this drafting test. McCabe's "crystal clear" standard is unforgiving.

Where Interrogatories Fit in the Pre-Trial Sequence

Interrogatories sit between pleadings and discovery. The procedural sequence below reflects the standard pathway of an Irish personal injury or clinical negligence case from Injuries Resolution Board authorisation through to trial. Interrogatories are most effective in the window after the defence has been delivered and before discovery categories are finalised — the point at which factual disputes are crystallised but the parties have not yet committed to expensive document discovery and expert evidence.

Worked Examples — Sample Interrogatories for Personal Injury Practice

Sample drafting is the most-requested resource in this area. The four worked examples below are illustrative only. They are drafted to comply with the Order 31 r. 2 criteria — confined to facts in issue, capable of an affirmative or negative answer or a short statement of fact, and each accompanied by a brief statement of reasons. They are not substitutes for individual case analysis, and the rule 2 criteria must be reapplied to the facts of any specific claim before a set is delivered.

Sample 1 — Workplace accident (system of work)

Scenario: Plaintiff sustained a crush injury when a hydraulic guard on a press machine failed to deploy. Defendant employer pleads a general traverse and denies breach of duty under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005.

Sample plaintiff interrogatories — workplace injury claim

#	Interrogatory	Statement of reasons
1	Was the hydraulic guard on press machine [serial number] inspected at any time in the twelve months preceding the index incident?	Necessary to establish whether the defendant complied with its maintenance obligations under regulation 30 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations 2007 — a matter within the defendant's exclusive knowledge.
2	On the date of the index incident, was there a written risk assessment in force in respect of the operation of the said press machine?	Necessary to crystallise compliance with section 19 of the 2005 Act. The plaintiff has no access to the defendant's internal documentation.
3	Did the plaintiff receive any documented training in the safe operation of the said press machine in the twelve months preceding the index incident?	Necessary to address the training duty under section 10 of the 2005 Act. Records of training are within the defendant's exclusive control.
4	Was any incident involving the failure of the hydraulic guard on press machine [serial number] reported to the Health and Safety Authority in the five years preceding the index incident?	Necessary to address foreseeability and the defendant's knowledge of prior similar events. The information is held by the defendant and the HSA only.

Sample 2 — Road traffic accident

Scenario: Plaintiff sustained whiplash and shoulder injuries in a rear-end collision. Defendant driver denies liability and pleads contributory negligence (failure to wear a seatbelt and emergency braking by plaintiff).

Sample plaintiff interrogatories — road traffic accident

#	Interrogatory	Statement of reasons
1	At the moment of impact, was the defendant's vehicle in motion?	Necessary to crystallise the defendant's account of the index event in advance of discovery. Capable of a simple affirmative or negative answer.
2	In the three seconds immediately preceding the impact, was the defendant looking through the windscreen of his vehicle?	Necessary to address the standard of care under the defendant's pleaded case. The fact is within the defendant's exclusive knowledge.
3	At the moment of impact, was any audio device in the defendant's vehicle playing media at a volume audible to the defendant?	Necessary to address potential distraction. Single-fact question capable of a short answer.

Sample 3 — Public liability (slip and fall)

Scenario: Plaintiff slipped on a wet supermarket floor and sustained a fractured wrist. Defendant occupier pleads a general traverse and denies notice of any spillage.

Sample plaintiff interrogatories — slip and fall

#	Interrogatory	Statement of reasons
1	On the date of the index incident, did the defendant operate a documented cleaning and inspection schedule for the area in which the incident occurred?	Necessary to address the defendant's duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1995 — a matter within the defendant's exclusive control.
2	On the date of the index incident, was CCTV footage recorded of the area in which the incident occurred?	Necessary to identify available evidence. Avoids a wide-ranging discovery category covering the existence and retention of CCTV.
3	In the two hours preceding the index incident, was the area in which the incident occurred inspected by any employee or agent of the defendant?	Necessary to crystallise the defendant's case on the standard of care. Single-fact question capable of a short factual answer.

Sample 4 — Clinical negligence (failure to act on test result)

Scenario: Plaintiff alleges a delayed diagnosis of malignancy following a chest CT reported with a suspicious nodule. Defendant hospital pleads in general terms that all reasonable care was taken. This is the paradigm fact pattern in which O'Sullivan v O'Riordan warrants the deployment of interrogatories.

Sample plaintiff interrogatories — failure to act on test result

#	Interrogatory	Statement of reasons
1	Was the radiology report dated [date] in respect of the plaintiff's chest CT received by the defendant's electronic record system on or before [date]?	Necessary to crystallise the chain of communication of the index report — a matter within the defendant's exclusive knowledge and central to causation.
2	Was the said radiology report viewed within the defendant's electronic record system by any clinician between [date of report] and [date of plaintiff's next clinical appointment]?	Necessary to address whether the report was read by a clinician with responsibility for the plaintiff's care prior to the next attendance.
3	As at [date of plaintiff's next clinical appointment], did the defendant have in operation a system for flagging suspicious radiology findings to the referring clinician?	Necessary to address the systems-level standard of care. Capable of a simple affirmative or negative answer.

Defendant-side equivalents — In each scenario above, a defendant may use interrogatories to probe pre-existing conditions, prior claims history, and inconsistencies between the verifying affidavit and the plaintiff's medical or social-media record. Typical defendant interrogatories include: "Has the plaintiff ever previously made a claim for personal injuries?"; "On the date of the index incident, was the plaintiff in receipt of any medical treatment for [body part]?"; "In the twelve months preceding the index incident, did the plaintiff post any content on any social media platform depicting [relevant activity]?". Each must be confined to a single factual issue, capable of a short answer, and accompanied by a statement of reasons.

Common Objections — What Fails and What Works

Order 31 r. 5 RSC sets out the grounds on which an interrogatory may be objected to, and Order 31 r. 9(b) supplies the criteria the court applies on a motion to compel. Read together with rule 10 (cross-examination admissibility) and the general law of privilege, these provisions form the complete taxonomy of objections available to an interrogated party. The interrogated party may decline to answer where the interrogatory does not comply with the requirements of rule 2, is not sufficiently material at the stage at which it is delivered, is not made bona fide, has been delivered unreasonably or vexatiously, is prolix, oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous, might prejudice a fair hearing of the issues between the parties, or might more appropriately be admitted on cross-examination of a witness at trial. The objection must be set out concisely in a notice of objection delivered alongside the answering affidavit. The case law has refined the rules into a practical taxonomy of objections that succeed and objections that fail.

Common objections to interrogatories — assessment from Irish case law

Objection	Authority	Typical outcome
Question is multifaceted or compound	O'Sullivan v O'Riordan [2023] IECA 165	Usually upheld. A single-fact yes/no/short-answer format is the rule. Compound questions are reformulated by the court or refused.
Question seeks an opinion or admission of negligence	Blackwell v Glaxosmithkline (High Court, 2020)	Upheld. Interrogatories are confined to facts in issue, not legal conclusions or expert opinions.
Question requires the answering party to accept a disputed premise	Blackwell v Glaxosmithkline (High Court, 2020)	Upheld where the premise is genuinely disputed and central to liability.
Question is already addressed by the pleadings	Order 31 r. 9(b)(ii) — "unnecessary"	Often upheld where the answer is already on the verifying affidavit; less often upheld where the pleading is a bare denial vulnerable to O'Sullivan's "blanket defence" criticism.
Question is appropriate for cross-examination at trial	Order 31 r. 10; Blackwell	Variable. The courts will not allow interrogatories to displace trial cross-examination where the issue turns on credibility; they will allow interrogatories where the issue is documentary or systems-based.
Plaintiff refused to engage with a prior notice to admit facts on the same issues	McCabe v Irish Life Assurance plc [2015] IECA 239	Rejected. Kelly J held that bare refusal to engage with a notice to admit was "an unacceptable approach to the conduct of litigation" — defendant entitled to use interrogatories on the same issues.
Documents (medical records) would answer the question more comprehensively	Egan v Castlerea [2023] IECA 240	Sometimes engaged the other way around — where interrogatories are sought as a substitute for discovery, the court may direct discovery. The procedures are complementary, not alternatives.

The 2024 reform also imposes a procedural overlay on the objection process. Order 31 r. 4(1) RSC (and identically Order 32 r. 12(1) CCR) expressly provides that the notice of objection "shall include, where relevant, details of any other means by which the interrogated party is willing to address the matter raised in the interrogatory concerned (including, without limitation, by delivering further particulars; by making an admission, or by producing documents)". The obligation is mandatory in form ("shall include") but conditional in substance ("where relevant"). Failing to address the question whether such alternative means exist is a drafting omission, not a substantive non-compliance, but the court will consider the absence of any such proposal in determining whether the objection was reasonable for the purpose of rule 11 costs analysis.

Sample wording of a Notice of Objection

The notice of objection is a separate document delivered alongside the answering affidavit. It should be concise and rule-grounded. The structure below reflects the standard practitioner form:

Privilege as a ground of objection

Privilege is not expressly enumerated in either Order 31 r. 5 (grounds of objection) or Order 31 r. 9(b) (court determinations), but it applies to interrogatories through the general law of privilege. Legal advice privilege and litigation privilege both apply to interrogatory answers. A party may decline to answer an interrogatory which would require disclosure of legal advice received from a solicitor, the substance of a litigation privileged communication, or the contents of an expert report prepared in contemplation of litigation. The proper course is to object on the basis that the interrogatory falls outside the scope of permissible questions (because it seeks privileged information rather than a fact in issue), invoking rule 5's "any other proper ground of objection" head, and to identify the privilege relied on in the notice of objection. Where the court is asked to determine whether the privilege claim is properly made, the analysis follows the general Irish law on privilege in litigation — the leading principles are not specific to interrogatories.

Without prejudice communications are similarly outside the scope of permissible interrogatories. A question that requires the answering party to disclose the content of settlement discussions or "without prejudice" correspondence may be refused on the basis that the underlying material is not admissible in evidence and the interrogatory is therefore not capable of being put to any proper litigious purpose.

Drafting Checklist — Pre-Service Self-Audit

Use this checklist before serving any set of interrogatories. The ten points reflect the cumulative drafting discipline imposed by Order 31 r. 2 RSC, Order 32 CCR, and the case law from Goodbody through O'Sullivan. A set that fails any point is exposed to objection, refusal, or — at the costs stage — sanction under rule 11. Tap each item to mark complete; progress is tracked below.

Common Practitioner Mistakes — Anti-Patterns to Avoid

The reformed regime exchanges advance court scrutiny for self-discipline at drafting. Mistakes that would previously have been caught at the leave application are now caught at the objection stage or, worse, at the rule 11 costs stage. The eight anti-patterns below are the most common drafting and procedural errors in Irish personal injury practice. Each is grounded in the rule or case-law authority it offends.

Interrogatories in Medical Negligence Proceedings

Clinical negligence is where interrogatories now matter most. Medical negligence proceedings in Ireland are managed in the dedicated Clinical Negligence List established under Practice Direction HC132 (in force from 28 April 2025), with applications for trial dates governed by Practice Direction HC131. The combination of (a) the abolition of the leave requirement for interrogatories, (b) the willingness expressed in O'Sullivan to use interrogatories where defences are uninformative, and (c) the case-management regime created by HC131 and HC132, means that interrogatories now sit naturally within the pre-trial preparation envelope for clinical negligence cases.

Three categories of clinical negligence interrogatory are particularly common. Identification interrogatories establish who treated the patient — the specific consultant on duty, the registrar present at a procedure, the nurse who recorded a particular observation. Process interrogatories establish what was done — whether informed consent was taken, whether a particular test result was reviewed before a clinical decision, whether a guideline was applied. Knowledge interrogatories establish what was known to the defendant at the relevant time — whether a particular risk was discussed with the patient, whether an internal report flagged a concern, whether a similar incident had occurred previously.

The boundary established in Egan applies with full force in clinical negligence. Interrogatories cannot extract the contents of medical records, identify entries by date, or compel disclosure of detailed clinical reasoning that requires documentary scrutiny. For those tasks discovery remains the appropriate procedure. The two are designed to work in series: interrogatories first, to identify the facts in dispute and the individuals concerned; discovery second, focused narrowly on the documents that the interrogatory answers have shown to be relevant.

Interrogatories, Discovery, and Notices to Admit Facts Compared

Three pre-trial procedures address overlapping but distinct functions. Practitioners — and litigants reading this page — often conflate interrogatories with discovery, or with the parallel Order 32 procedure of a notice to admit facts. The three differ in form, scope, sanction, and strategic purpose, and they are designed to be used together rather than in the alternative.

Interrogatories compared with discovery and notice to admit facts

Procedure	Form	Object	Threshold	Sanction
Interrogatories (O. 31 RSC; O. 32 CCR)	Sworn affidavit answering specified questions (Form 9)	Extract sworn answers on specific factual issues	Up to 20 without leave; statement of reasons required; rule 2 criteria	Costs sanction (rule 11); viva voce examination; risk of dismissal or strike-out for non-compliance
Discovery (O. 31 r. 12 RSC; O. 32 CCR)	Affidavit of Discovery listing relevant documents	Inspect documents in the opposing party's possession or power	Relevance + necessity; voluntary discovery letter first	Attachment; striking out for failure or destruction
Notice to admit facts (O. 32 r. 1 RSC; costs sanction r. 2)	Written notice; written admission in reply (not sworn)	Admit specified facts or the authenticity of documents to save trial costs	Issued at any time before trial	Costs of proving the fact at trial where admission was unreasonably refused

The procedures are best understood sequentially. A notice to admit facts can be issued at low cost to identify the genuinely contested issues. If the opposing party refuses to admit facts that are unobjectionable, interrogatories on the same issues become an appropriate next step — and the refusal to admit can be deployed under McCabe to justify the interrogatories as both necessary and cost-saving. Discovery follows where the interrogatory answers identify documents the requesting party needs to scrutinise. Mixing the procedures is sometimes appropriate, but each is designed for a specific evidential function and substituting one for another tends to produce procedural waste.

Interaction with the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004

Sworn answers to interrogatories sit within the section 14 verifying-affidavit regime. Personal injury proceedings in Ireland are subject to the special disclosure regime created by the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. Section 13 prohibits "bare" denials in PI defences and requires the defendant to state specifically the grounds of contest. Section 14 requires each party to verify its pleadings on affidavit. Section 25 makes it a criminal offence to swear a false or misleading statement on a verifying affidavit. Section 29 provides the penalty: on indictment, a fine of up to €100,000 or imprisonment for a term of up to ten years, or both; on summary conviction, a fine of up to €3,000 or imprisonment for up to 12 months, or both. Section 26 empowers the court to dismiss a personal injury action where the plaintiff has given false or misleading evidence in support of the claim.

Interrogatories interact with each of these sections. The s. 13 obligation to plead specifically has been treated by the courts (notably by Collins J in Crean v Harty [2020] IECA 364 and in Morgan v ESB [2021] IECA 29) as a substantive requirement, and was directly engaged by Noonan J in O'Sullivan when he characterised the defendant's plea as a "blanket defence". Where the defence fails the s. 13 standard, interrogatories are the procedural mechanism by which the plaintiff can force the defendant to put detail behind a vague denial.

The section 14 / section 25 link operates in the other direction. Answers to interrogatories must be sworn in Form 9 by a deponent with knowledge of the facts, or with appropriate inquiry made to acquire that knowledge. A false answer to an interrogatory is no less an offence under section 25 than a false statement in a verifying affidavit. This converts the interrogatory mechanism into a truth-extraction tool of substantial force. A defendant whose officer swears a false answer to an interrogatory exposes that officer to criminal liability and exposes the defendant to the costs and credibility consequences of the falsehood at trial.

Section 26 then closes the loop. A plaintiff's false answer to a defendant's interrogatory — for example, denying a prior accident that the defendant can prove from Injuries Resolution Board (IRB) records — can found a section 26 dismissal application. Practitioners advising clients on responses to interrogatories must explain this risk in identical terms to the warning they give on the verifying affidavit itself.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I need leave of the court to deliver interrogatories in a personal injury case in Ireland?

No, not for a single set of twenty interrogatories or fewer delivered after the Statement of Claim (plaintiff) or Defence (defendant). The leave requirement was abolished by S.I. No. 363 of 2024 in the Superior Courts from 31 July 2024 and by S.I. No. 200 of 2025 in the Circuit Court from 13 June 2025.

Leave is still required for a second set of interrogatories, or for any set containing more than twenty individual questions, in either court. Commercial Court and Competition List proceedings are not capped at twenty.

Practitioner note: The statement of reasons under Order 31 r. 2 is mandatory even where no leave is required. The court has substituted advance screening with a drafting discipline imposed at delivery — drafters who omit the reasons risk objection without scrutiny of the merits.

Read more: See the full text of S.I. No. 363 of 2024 on irishstatutebook.ie for the substituted Order 31 rules 1 to 11.

How long does the other side have to answer interrogatories?

The interrogated party has twenty-one days from delivery to answer on affidavit, or to file a notice setting out the grounds of any objection to particular interrogatories. The same period applies in both the High Court (Order 31 r. 4(1)) and the Circuit Court (Order 32 r. 12(1)).

The twenty-one-day window may be extended by agreement between the parties or by application to the court. If the answer is incomplete or evasive, or if the objection is contested, the interrogating party then has fourteen days from delivery of the answering affidavit to apply for an order compelling further answers under Order 31 r. 7.

Practitioner note: Practitioners drafting interrogatories often build a calendar that anticipates two motion windows — one in respect of the 21-day answer window if non-compliance is expected, and one in respect of the 14-day motion to compel window if the answers are inadequate.

Read more: For the interaction with case management timelines in clinical negligence, see Practice Direction HC131.

What questions can interrogatories ask, and what are they not permitted to ask?

Under Order 31 r. 2 RSC, interrogatories must be confined to facts in issue, or facts reasonably relevant to establishing facts in issue, and must be capable of an affirmative or negative answer or a short statement of fact. They must not extend to the evidence by which facts may be proved.

The case law adds three further constraints. Interrogatories must not be multifaceted or compound (O'Sullivan v O'Riordan [2023] IECA 165); they must not seek opinions or admissions of negligence (Blackwell v Glaxosmithkline, High Court, MacGrath J, 2020); and they must be "crystal clear" — capable of a single, unambiguous answer (McCabe v Irish Life Assurance plc [2015] IECA 239).

Practitioner note: The drafting discipline now matters more than under the old regime, not less. Under the abolished leave requirement, the court screened the questions before delivery; under the new regime, badly-drafted interrogatories are answered by an objection notice, with the costs risk of a failed motion to compel falling on the interrogating party.

Read more: The drafting standard is set out in McCabe v Irish Life Assurance plc, available on BAILII and discussed in our guide to discovery in personal injury proceedings.

What happens if the other side refuses to answer or gives an evasive answer?

The interrogating party may apply by motion within fourteen days of delivery of the answering affidavit or notice of objection for an order compelling further answers. The application is heard under Order 31 r. 7 RSC (Superior Courts) or Order 32 r. 15 CCR (Circuit Court).

On hearing the motion the court may order the answering party to answer further on affidavit, to attend before a judge or the Master for viva voce examination, to deliver further particulars, or to produce specified documents. Where non-compliance continues, the ultimate sanctions are dismissal of the action (for a defaulting plaintiff) or striking out of the defence (for a defaulting defendant), and the court may award costs against the non-complying party in any event.

Practitioner note: The viva voce sanction is often the more useful one. It strips the answering party of the protection of a legal team's drafted response and exposes the deponent to direct judicial questioning — particularly powerful where the deponent is a corporate officer answering on inquiry.

Read more: The viva voce power is set out in Order 31 r. 9 RSC and discussed in Defender Ltd v HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Ireland) DAC [2018] IEHC 322.

Are interrogatories the same as discovery in Irish civil procedure?

No. Interrogatories are written questions answered on affidavit. Discovery is a separate procedure in which a party lists, by sworn affidavit, all documents in their possession or power that are relevant to a matter in issue, and makes those documents available for inspection.

The two procedures are complementary, not alternatives. The Court of Appeal in Egan v Castlerea Co-operative Livestock Mart Ltd [2023] IECA 240 confirmed that interrogatories cannot substitute for discovery where the dispute concerns the content of documentary records — for example, post-accident medical records relevant to causation and pre-existing condition.

Practitioner note: The sequence most often used in personal injury practice is interrogatories first (to identify the contested factual issues and the relevant individuals), then targeted discovery (limited to the documents the interrogatory answers have shown to matter).

Read more: Our guide to discovery of documents explains the discovery regime in detail.

Do interrogatories apply in proceedings before the Injuries Resolution Board?

No. Interrogatories operate only in court proceedings. They are governed by the Rules of the Superior Courts and the Circuit Court Rules, neither of which applies to the statutory assessment process before the Injuries Resolution Board (IRB) under the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003.

Interrogatories first become available after IRB authorisation has been granted and proceedings have been issued in court. The most common timing in personal injury practice is shortly after the Defence has been delivered, which is typically several months after authorisation.

Practitioner note: The IRB regime relies on a different disclosure architecture — the formal application papers and the section 11 medical reports — and does not provide a procedural equivalent to interrogatories.

Read more: See our guide to the Injuries Resolution Board for an explanation of the statutory assessment process.

Related Questions

Short answers bridging from interrogatories to adjacent topics in Irish personal injury litigation.

How does discovery work in a personal injury case in Ireland?

Discovery in Irish personal injury proceedings is the procedure by which one party lists, on sworn affidavit, all documents in their possession or power that are relevant to a matter in issue, and makes those documents available for inspection. It is governed by Order 31 r. 12 RSC (Superior Courts) and Order 32 CCR (Circuit Court). The voluntary-discovery stage precedes any motion. Read our full guide to discovery of documents.

What does a Defence have to contain in a personal injury case?

Under section 13 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, a defence in personal injury proceedings must state specifically the grounds on which the defendant disputes the claim. "Bare" denials are prohibited. Where a defence fails this standard, the plaintiff may use interrogatories to force detail behind a vague plea — the approach endorsed by Noonan J in O'Sullivan v O'Riordan. Read our guide to defence and particulars.

When can I bring a personal injury claim to court after the Injuries Resolution Board?

Proceedings may be issued in court only after the Injuries Resolution Board (IRB) has issued an authorisation. The most common authorisation route is under section 32 of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 (where the assessment is not accepted by either party); authorisation may also be issued under sections 14, 17, or 36 of the same Act in other circumstances. Most cases are authorised where the respondent has not consented to assessment or where the IRB has assessed the claim and one party rejects the award. Read our IRB guide.

Should my personal injury case go to the Circuit Court or the High Court?

The jurisdictional threshold for the Circuit Court is currently €60,000 for personal injuries. Claims valued above that threshold proceed in the High Court. The interrogatories regime differs in two respects: in the Circuit Court, interrogatories must be delivered before Notice of Trial and the County Registrar can determine objections. Read our guide to court jurisdiction.

Glossary of Key Terms

The terminology used throughout this article reflects Irish civil procedure as applied to personal injury litigation. The definitions below are practitioner-aligned and conform to the usage in the Rules of the Superior Courts, the Circuit Court Rules, and the principal Irish authorities. Each term is also marked up with structured data so that legal databases can extract the definition independently.

Interrogatory

A written question delivered by one party in court proceedings to another, which must be answered on a sworn affidavit and which may be used as evidence at trial. Governed in Ireland by Order 31 rr. 1–11 RSC and Order 32 rr. 9–19 CCR.

Affidavit

A written statement of fact sworn or affirmed before a Commissioner for Oaths, a Notary Public, or a practising solicitor authorised to take affidavits. Answers to interrogatories must be given on affidavit, attracting the false-statement consequences of section 25 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004.

Deponent

The person who swears or affirms an affidavit. In the context of interrogatories, the deponent is the party answering or, where the answering party is a corporate body, the officer authorised to answer on its behalf.

Viva voce examination

An oral examination of a party or witness before a judge or the Master, taken on oath. Where an answering party is evasive or insufficient in its answers to interrogatories, the court may direct that further answers be given by viva voce examination rather than by supplemental affidavit (Order 31 r. 9 RSC).

Leave of the court

Prior permission of the court, granted on motion supported by affidavit. Under the pre-31-July-2024 regime, all interrogatories outside the Commercial List and Competition List required leave. Under the post-reform regime, leave is required only for a second set of interrogatories or for a set exceeding twenty questions.

Statement of reasons

The brief written explanation that must accompany each interrogatory or group of interrogatories, setting out why the answers sought are necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs. Required by Order 31 r. 2 RSC and Order 32 r. 10(3) CCR as substituted in 2024 and 2025 respectively.

Notice of objection

The formal document by which the interrogated party declines to answer one or more interrogatories. The grounds of objection are enumerated in Order 31 r. 5 RSC (Superior Courts) and Order 32 r. 13 CCR (Circuit Court); the notice must be delivered alongside the answering affidavit within the 21-day window prescribed by Order 31 r. 4(1) RSC or Order 32 r. 12(1) CCR.

Form No. 8 and Form No. 9

The prescribed forms for delivering interrogatories (Form No. 8) and answering them on affidavit (Form No. 9) in the Superior Courts. Set out in Appendix C to the Rules of the Superior Courts as substituted by SI 363/2024. The Circuit Court equivalents are Form 57A and Form 57B in the Schedule of Forms.

Verifying affidavit

The sworn affidavit verifying the contents of a pleading in a personal injury action, required by section 14 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. Answers to interrogatories sit within the same affidavit regime as the verifying affidavit and attract the same section 25 and section 26 consequences for false or misleading content.

Attachment

The court process by which a person who has disobeyed a court order may be committed for contempt. In the context of interrogatories, attachment is the ultimate sanction available where a party refuses to comply with an order to answer further on affidavit or to attend for viva voce examination.

Costs in any event

A costs order awarded to one party regardless of the eventual outcome of the substantive proceedings. The default sanction under Order 31 r. 11 where interrogatories have been delivered unreasonably or vexatiously, or where an answer is insufficient. Operates independently of the order for costs of the trial itself.

Master of the High Court

A judicial officer of the High Court with jurisdiction over various interlocutory matters including motions to compel further answers to interrogatories. Many routine motions are heard by the Master before any further appeal to a High Court judge.

Bibliography

The following authorities are referenced in this article. Citations follow OSCOLA-adjacent conventions adapted for Irish authority: neutral citation first, parallel reported citation where available, then court and judge.

Primary legislation

1. Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 (Act No. 31 of 2004), ss 13, 14, 25, 26, 29 — irishstatutebook.ie
2. Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 (Act No. 46 of 2003) (renaming and amending provisions in the Personal Injuries Resolution Board Act 2022) — irishstatutebook.ie
3. Personal Injuries Resolution Board Act 2022 (Act No. 42 of 2022) — irishstatutebook.ie
4. Courts of Justice Act 1924, s 36 (rule-making power); Courts of Justice Act 1936, ss 67, 68; Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961, ss 14, 48 — 1924 Act · 1936 Act · 1961 Act

Statutory instruments — rules of court

1. Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (S.I. No. 15 of 1986) (consolidated rules of the superior courts as amended) — irishstatutebook.ie
2. Circuit Court Rules 2001 (S.I. No. 510 of 2001) (consolidated Circuit Court rules as amended) — irishstatutebook.ie
3. Rules of the Superior Courts (Interrogatories) 2024 (S.I. No. 363 of 2024), in force 31 July 2024, substituting rules 1–11 of Order 31, rule 13 of Order 63A, and rule 12 of Order 63B, and Forms 8 and 9 in Appendix C — irishstatutebook.ie
4. Circuit Court Rules (Interrogatories) 2025 (S.I. No. 200 of 2025), in force 13 June 2025, substituting rule 9 of Order 32 with new rules 9–19 and inserting Forms 57A and 57B — irishstatutebook.ie

Practice directions

1. Practice Direction HC131 — Clinical Negligence Actions: Applications for Trial Dates (Barniville P, issued 8 April 2025; in force 28 April 2025) — courts.ie
2. Practice Direction HC132 — Clinical Negligence List (Barniville P, issued 8 April 2025; in force 28 April 2025) — courts.ie

Cases — Court of Appeal

1. McCabe v Irish Life Assurance plc [2015] IECA 239; [2015] 1 IR 346 (CA, Kelly J, 9 November 2015) — pre-trial disclosure value of interrogatories; "crystal clear" drafting standard — BAILII
2. O'Sullivan v O'Riordan and Mercy University Hospital Cork [2023] IECA 165 (CA, Noonan J, 26 June 2023) — interrogatories appropriate in clinical negligence where defence is generic — BAILII
3. Egan v Castlerea Co-operative Livestock Mart Ltd [2023] IECA 240 (CA, Butler J, 9 October 2023) — interrogatories cannot substitute for discovery where dispute concerns documentary content — BAILII

Cases — Supreme Court and High Court

1. J & L.S. Goodbody Ltd v The Clyde Shipping Company Ltd (SC, Walsh J, 9 May 1967) — foundational endorsement of interrogatories as a pre-trial procedure
2. Mercantile Credit Company of Ireland Ltd v Heelan [1994] 2 IR 105; [1994] 1 ILRM 406 (HC, Costello J, 24 February 1994) — two-purpose doctrine: information and admissions
3. Bula Ltd v Tara Mines Ltd [1995] 1 ILRM 401, 405 (HC, Lynch J) — "convenience to prove" formulation; interrogatories must address facts, not interpretation
4. Woodfab Ltd v Coillte Teoranta [2000] 1 IR 20 (HC, Shanley J) — interrogatories not permitted where matter requires interpretation of documents
5. Money Markets International Stock Brokers Ltd v Fanning [2000] IEHC 15 (HC, Laffoy J) — limits on interrogatory scope — BAILII
6. Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd (in special liquidation) v Fitzpatrick [2017] IEHC 715 (HC, Baker J) — fairness requirement in rule 2
7. Blackwell (a minor) v The Minister for Health and Children and others (HC, MacGrath J, 2020) — opinion-seeking interrogatories impermissible
8. Crean v Harty [2020] IECA 364 (CA, Collins J) — particulars and pleading standards in PI — BAILII

Historical authority (English equity origin)

1. Attorney-General v Gaskill (1882) 20 Ch D 519 (CA, England and Wales) — two-purpose doctrine for interrogatories; received into Irish procedure via early twentieth-century practice

Suggested citation for this article

Gary Matthews, 'Interrogatories in Personal Injury Claims' (Gary Matthews Solicitors, 13 May 2026) https://www.personalinjurysolicitorsdublin.info/court-process/interrogatories/ accessed [date].

References

1. S.I. No. 363 of 2024 — Rules of the Superior Courts (Interrogatories) 2024. Office of the Attorney General, irishstatutebook.ie. In force 31 July 2024.
2. S.I. No. 200 of 2025 — Circuit Court Rules (Interrogatories) 2025. Office of the Attorney General, irishstatutebook.ie. In force 13 June 2025.
3. Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. Act No. 31 of 2004 — ss. 13 (defence content), 14 (verifying affidavit), 25 (false or misleading statements), 26 (dismissal for false evidence).
4. Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003. Act No. 46 of 2003.
5. Appendix C to the Rules of the Superior Courts: Notices and Affidavits — Form No. 8 (Interrogatories) and Form No. 9 (Answer to Interrogatories). Courts Service of Ireland.
6. Practice Direction HC132 — Clinical Negligence List. Issued by the President of the High Court, 8 April 2025. In force 28 April 2025.
7. Practice Direction HC131 — Clinical Negligence Actions: Applications for Trial Dates. Issued by the President of the High Court, 8 April 2025.
8. J & L.S. Goodbody Ltd v The Clyde Shipping Company Ltd (Supreme Court, Walsh J, 9 May 1967) (unreported). Cited in McCabe v Irish Life Assurance plc [2015] IECA 239 and O'Sullivan v O'Riordan [2023] IECA 165.
9. Mercantile Credit Co of Ireland Ltd v Heelan [1994] 2 IR 105 (High Court, Costello J).
10. Bula Ltd v Tara Mines Ltd [1995] 1 ILRM 401 (High Court, Lynch J).
11. Woodfab Ltd v Coillte Teoranta [2000] 1 IR 20 (High Court).
12. Money Markets International Stock Brokers Ltd v Fanning [2000] IEHC 15; [2000] 3 IR 215; [2001] 1 ILRM 1 (High Court, Laffoy J, 11 February 2000).
13. McCabe v Irish Life Assurance plc [2015] IECA 239; [2015] 1 IR 346 (Court of Appeal, Kelly J, Irvine J, Hogan J, 9 November 2015).
14. Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd (in special liquidation) v Fitzpatrick [2017] IEHC 715 (High Court, Baker J).
15. Defender Ltd v HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Ireland) DAC [2018] IEHC 322 (High Court).
16. Blackwell (a minor) v The Minister for Health and Children and others [2020] IEHC (High Court, MacGrath J, 18 August 2020). GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA was the fourth-named defendant.
17. Crean v Harty [2020] IECA 364 (Court of Appeal, Collins J).
18. Morgan v ESB [2021] IECA 29 (Court of Appeal, Collins J).
19. Naghten v Cool Running Events Limited [2021] IECA 17 (Court of Appeal, Noonan J).
20. O'Sullivan (a minor) suing by her mother and next friend Grace O'Sullivan v Michael O'Riordan and Mercy University Hospital Cork [2023] IECA 165 (Court of Appeal, Noonan J, 26 June 2023).
21. Egan v Castlerea Co-operative Livestock Mart Ltd [2023] IECA 240 (Court of Appeal, Butler J, 9 October 2023).