Loading...
Queensland Judgments

beta

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

Wells v Chen

 

[2004] QSC 18

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

MUIR J

No S9387 of 2000

JAMIE CHARLES WELLS

Plaintiff

and

 

SHUI HSIEN CHEN AND HUI LIEN CHEN

First Defendants

and

 

UNIVERSAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD (ACN 011 042 998)

Second Defendant

BRISBANE

DATE 09/01/2004

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: In this matter the plaintiff seeks judgment by default under rule 288 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. Under rule 288(3) the Court is empowered to give the judgment it considers justified on the pleadings, even if the judgment was not claimed. That provision is of particular relevance as the claim in the statement of claim against the first defendants is inter alia for orders that a partnership between the plaintiff and the first defendants be resolved, that the affairs of the partnership be wound up, that all necessary accounts and inquiries be taken and made, and that a relatively small monetary sum be paid.

Mr Sullivan, who appears for the applicant, seeks a payment of monies by the defendants by way of equitable damages in lieu of the relief just described. The reason for this is that an accounting has in fact taken place and is set out in the affidavit of the applicant filed herein. He submits, and I accept, that if I were to order, as I could, in terms of the relief sought, the same result would be reached by a more lengthy circuitous and expensive process.

One of the problems facing the applicant is the difficulty effecting service on the first defendants. They are resident in Taiwan and it has taken about a year for service of the initiating process to be effected. Even then there were some irregularities in service, in particular, personal service was not effected on the male first defendant. I am entitled under the rules, however, to proceed to give judgment notwithstanding that deficiency and any irregularity to that extent is waived.

Notice of the proceeding was given by appropriate notification on a door of a premises identified in a Court order. Personal service was effected on the female first defendant, the spouse of the male first defendant. They were both directors of the second defendant until relatively recent times and remain directors and sole shareholders of another Australian company. I should say that they are also sole shareholders of the second defendant and Corporate Affairs records reveal that they have the same Australian address.

It is therefore virtually certain that the male first defendant was given notice of the full content of the claim and statement of claim.

I have intimated to Mr Sullivan the order I am prepared to make. I think it would be desirable, however, that a copy of these reasons be served on the first defendants care of the registered office of the second defendant and the other corporation I have mentioned, together with a letter stating that the Court has intimated that in the absence of a prior application by or on behalf of the first defendants to be heard in this matter, judgment will be given in terms of the enclosed draft on Friday, 23 January 2004.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Jamie Charles Wells v Shui Hsien Chen and Hui Lien Chen

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Wells v Chen

  • MNC:

    [2004] QSC 18

  • Court:

    QSC

  • Judge(s):

    Muir J

  • Date:

    09 Jan 2004

Litigation History

No Litigation History

Appeal Status

No Status