Thomas v Yianoulatos
[2010] QDC 67
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
- Thomas v Yianoulatos[2010] QDC 67
- Add to List
Thomas v Yianoulatos[2010] QDC 67
Thomas v Yianoulatos[2010] QDC 67
[2010] QDC 67
DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE ROBIN QC
No 28 of 2010
DEAN RAYMOND THOMAS | Applicant |
and | |
HARRIS JAMES YIANOULATOS JAMES COSTA YIANOULATOS JOHN YIANOULATOS | Respondents |
SOUTHPORT
DATE 22/02/2010
ORDER
CATCHWORDS | Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 116 Service and Execution of Process Act 1992, s 17 Substituted service by newspaper advertisement of criminal compensation application - reliance placed on newspaper article about the relevant offence which described the respondent offenders as from Melbourne |
HIS HONOUR: The Court has made an order in terms of an initialled draft providing for substituted service of this application for criminal compensation on the three respondents.
The application is apparently in time, conviction and sentence having occurred in December 2007 in this Court. It has proved impossible to locate the respondents for purposes of service of the originating application, which is listed for hearing on the 15th of March 2010.
They are photographed together with their then solicitor, Mr O'Gorman, in a half page article in the Gold Coast Bulletin of 28th of September 2006. The article highlights that the respondents come from Melbourne. The solicitors who acted in the sentence - it was a plea, I take it?
MR KERRIGAN: Yes, I believe it was, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: …have indicated they lack instructions to accept service and presumably have declined to identify the whereabouts of the erstwhile clients, assuming that that those are even known. There's been some attempt by use of the telephone directory to trace the defendants using their distinctive surname, but that’s been unavailing.
In the circumstances, an advertisement in a newspaper circulating in Melbourne appears to be a suitable means of bringing an application to the attention of the respondents.
A further complication which strikes me is that given that service is to be effected out of Queensland, the requirements of the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 will have to be complied with. By section 17, those include a standard period of 21 days be allowed to persons served before anything is required of them. A Judge has the power to shorten the period, which is something that ought to be done, in my opinion, in the interests of preserving the hearing date which I have mentioned.
Pursuant to rule 116 of the UCPR, substituted service by advertisement in a Melbourne newspaper is directed. It's left to the applicant's solicitors to settle the form of advertisement, but a number of details are specified in the order to ensure that essential matters get covered.
I have thought it unnecessary to include some detail such as inclusion in the advertising of reference to the availability of the Form 1, which the Act requires to accompany service. That’s a requirement of the general law, and no doubt the applicant's solicitors will attend to it.
Order as per initialled draft. While acting in reliance on the newspaper article is unusual, it is a reasonable course in the circumstances.