Loading...
Queensland Judgments

beta

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Ludke v Workcover Queensland

 

[2002] QSC 186

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JONES J

Claim No 168 of 2002

KENT LLEWELLYN JAMES LUDKE

Applicant/Plaintiff

and

 

WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND

Defendant

CAIRNS

DATE 11/06/2002

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: This is an application for substituted service on Mr Adrian Farmilo of an application that he be joined as a further defendant in this action.

Mr Farmilo is the employer of the plaintiff at the time in which he sustained personal injuries in the course of his employment. The present defendant, WorkCover Queensland, was served on the basis that they are a party to the action, but also in the expectation that WorkCover would indemnify Mr Farmilo. That expectation cannot be relied upon and consequently the plaintiff now seeks to join Mr Farmilo, a step which WorkCover has indicated it may oppose.

The first difficulty encountered by the plaintiff is the fact that Mr Farmilo has not yet been served with the application. I am satisfied, on the material before me, that Mr Farmilo is deliberately avoiding being served. I find that to be the case on the basis, as appears from Mr Lewis's affidavit, that a process server has attempted to effect service on the 21st of March 2002, and on the 13th, 17th, 19th, 20th, 23rd and 25th of April 2002 at an address, 169 Swan Street, Guildford in the State of Western Australia. I am satisfied that the process server, through his inquiry, has identified Mr Farmilo as a person residing at that address.

The plaintiff's father, Mr Edwin Ludke, has also had contact by telephone with Mr Farmilo on nine occasions in the last three months. In the course of those conversations he has attempted to arrange a meeting with Mr Farmilo, but any arrangements made have never been complied with. In the course of such telephone conversations, Mr Farmilo indicated that he would avoid being served with Court proceedings. I should mention, also, that Mr Farmilo has, on an earlier occasion, given a false address to the Ludke family and to their solicitors.

I am satisfied, on the material before me, that service of the proceedings on any adult person at the residence of 169 Swan Street, Guildford, Western Australia, will result in the notice of the proceedings coming to the attention of Mr Farmilo.

I therefore order that service of Mr Adrian Farmilo be effected by service of the relevant documents and a copy of this order on any adult person apparently residing at 169 Swan Street, Guildford in the State of Western Australia.

The costs of and incidental to this application will be reserved.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Kent Llewellyn James Ludke v Workcover Queensland

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Ludke v Workcover Queensland

  • MNC:

    [2002] QSC 186

  • Court:

    QSC

  • Judge(s):

    Jones J

  • Date:

    11 Jun 2002

Litigation History

No Litigation History

Appeal Status

No Status