Print Management Facilities Australia Pty Ltd v Rizzoli
[2025] QDC 74
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
- Print Management Facilities Australia Pty Ltd v Rizzoli[2025] QDC 74
- Add to List
Print Management Facilities Australia Pty Ltd v Rizzoli[2025] QDC 74
Print Management Facilities Australia Pty Ltd v Rizzoli[2025] QDC 74
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Print Management Facilities Australia Pty Ltd v Rizzoli [2025] QDC 74 |
PARTIES: | Print Management Facilities Australia Pty Ltd (plaintiff) v Lynette Joy Rizzoli (defendant) |
FILE NO: | 505 of 2025 |
DIVISION: | Civil |
PROCEEDING: | Interlocutory application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Brisbane District Court |
DELIVERED ON: | 5 June 2025. |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 3 June 2025. (Heard on the papers) |
JUDGES: | Byrne KC DCJ |
ORDER: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – SERVICE – IN LIEU OF PERSONAL SERVICE: SUBSTITUTED AND INFORMAL SERVICE – where the applicant applies for substituted service under rule 166 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 – where the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to effect personal service, through a process server, at the defendant’s residential address – where the defendant provided the process server with two alternative dates and times where personal service could be effected – where the process server did not attempt service on either of these dates and times, but did attempt service on other dates – whether it is ‘impractical’ to effect personal service. |
LEGISLATION: | Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 116. |
CASES: | Bendigo & Adelaide Bank Limited v Wilkin & Anor [2018] QDC 16. Bunnings Group Ltd v Tropical Island Constructions Pty Ltd & Anor [2023] QDC 61. Grow Asset Finance Pty Ltd v Bassi & Anor [2022] QDC 23. Lumi Finance Pty Ltd v Porrett [2025] QDC 67. Middencorp Electric Pty Ltd v Intelligent Infrastructure Solutions Pty Ltd & Ors [2020] QDC 72. National Australia Bank Limited v Garner [2022] QDC 221. Permanent Custodians Limited v Smith [2006] QSC 333. |
SOLICITORS: | Sasha Legal for the applicant. |
- [1]On 27 February 2025, the plaintiff commenced proceedings by way of Claim for various money orders and an equitable declaration.
- [2]The plaintiff now applies, ex parte and to be heard on the papers, for an order for substituted service pursuant to r 116 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.
- [3]Unfortunately, this is yet another example of a precipitous application for substituted service.[1] Happily, unlike many precedent examples, this application is founded on evidence in admissible form. It is fortunate that is so because, even though the application was determined ex parte and heard on the papers pursuant to the plaintiff’s request, the written submissions in support of the application accurately outlined the bare facts in support of the application in terms of dates and places, but do not identify the deficiencies in the application.
- [4]A process server attended on the defendant’s address on 6 March 2025. He was greeted by a male who identified himself as the defendant’s husband. He stated his wife works long and irregular hours. The process server called a phone number he understood to be the defendant’s. A woman answered who identified herself as the defendant said she would be at her residence and happy to accept service the next day between 10am and midday. The process server informed her that he was unable to attend at that time and enquired about an alternative time. The defendant responded that the next available time would be between 10am and midday the following Friday, 14 March 2025.
- [5]There is no evidence of anybody attending the address at either arranged time to effect service. There is no evidence of any further attempts to contact the defendant. There is evidence that a different process server attended the address on 4 April 2025 and 7 April 2025, and that there was nothing to suggest anybody was at the residence on either occasion.
- [6]On the basis of that evidence, the plaintiff submits that it is “impracticable to serve” the originating process.[2] I disagree.
- [7]More than mere inconvenience must be established before it will be accepted that impracticability has arisen.[3] The defendant made herself available for service on two nominated dates comprising a total timeframe of four hours. That it was apparently inconvenient to the process server to attend on the first date, and given there is no reason given for not effecting service on the later date, the plaintiff has not shown it was impracticable to serve the originating process. A defendant upon whom process is intended to be served does not have to go out of their way to allow service to be effected. That this defendant did make herself available for service, and there is no reason to suggest she did anything other than remain available, tells strongly against a finding that personal service was “impracticable”.
- [8]The application must be refused. There will be no order as to costs. For the purposes of clarity, my intention by the latter order is that all costs of, and incidental, to the application be thrown away. Given the hopeless nature of this application, once the facts were fully appreciated, there should be no possibility of the recovery of those costs against the defendant.
Footnotes
[1] Only some of many examples are Bendigo & Adelaide Bank Limited v Wilkin & Anor [2018] QDC 16, Middencorp Electric Pty Ltd v Intelligent Infrastructure Solutions Pty Ltd & Ors [2020] QDC 72, Grow Asset Finance Pty Ltd v Bassi & Anor [2022] QDC 23, National Australia Bank Limited v Garner [2022] QDC 221, Bunnings Group Ltd v Tropical Island Constructions Pty Ltd & Anor [2023] QDC 61 and Lumi Finance Pty Ltd v Porrett [2025] QDC 67.
[2] Rule 116 of the UCPR.
[3] Permanent Custodians Limited v Smith [2006] QSC 333, [4].