Adams v Carkeet
[2010] QDC 495
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Adams v Carkeet[2010] QDC 495
- Add to List
Adams v Carkeet[2010] QDC 495
Adams v Carkeet[2010] QDC 495
[2010] QDC 495
DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE ROBIN QC
No 2803 of 2010
DAVID MARK ADAMS | Applicant |
and |
|
NATHAN ROBERT CARKEET | Respondent |
BRISBANE
DATE 29/10/2010
ORDER
CATCHWORDS: | Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) Substituted service of application for criminal compensation - telephone contact suggests elusive respondent is aware of application - service on his mother in New South Wales permitted - form of advertisement in newspaper settled - whether separate originating application appropriate |
HIS HONOUR: Before the court is an originating application (2803 of 2010) which is seeking an order permitting substituted service of another originating application (3453 of 2009) in which the applicant seeks criminal compensation against the respondent.
It's unfortunate, I think, that the applicant has made a separate application at considerable cost in filing fees which may have been avoided if an interlocutory application had been filed in the 2009 originating application.
As to the substituted service, the court has made an order in terms of the initialled draft which approves a newspaper advertisement in terms of Annexure A. Through some confusion, as proposed that would advise a reader that the application was going to be heard on the 29th of October 2010 at 10 a.m. which of course refers to the present originating application. What has had to be done is identify a date when the sentencing Judge who is Judge O'Brien would be able to hear the 2009 originating application. His Honour's Associate has indicated that 22nd of November 2010 at 9.15 a.m. would be an appropriate hearing time and those particulars have now been inserted in paragraph 4 of the proposed advertisement.
Also annexed to the initialled order is an appropriate form 1 under the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 of the Commonwealth. That's required because the place of “substituted service” over and above the newspaper advertisement is the respondent's mother's address which is in New South Wales.
Ms Cheung, there's another amendment I need to make to paragraph 1(b) so that it makes sense. I don't think the last sentence should be separate. I think instead of the full stop it should just say, “and of the form 1.” See what I'm saying?
MS CHEUNG: Yes, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Because you've got to send that to them as well. That was obviously the intention anyway.
The person attempting to effect service and discover the whereabouts of the respondent managed to unearth a good deal of useful information, including a mobile telephone number which appeared to have resulted in direct speaking contact with the respondent but did not yield an address for service. The conversation would, I think, have alerted him to expect this application.
In addition to the order in terms of the initialled draft in 3453 of 2009, the file which was brought to court, given that Ms Cheung read and relied on the originating application. In it a separate order ought to be made fixing the hearing date and time as mentioned above. The application, as it presently appears on the court file, indicates that the application would be heard before Judge O'Brien on "DTBF" which would be unlikely to convey anything to the respondent, although a person with relevant expertise might be able to construe it as meaning “on a date to be fixed.”
...
HIS HONOUR: The order made today in 3453 of 2009 fixing the hearing for 9.15 a.m. on 22 November 2010 before Judge O'Brien is confirmed.
...