Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QMC
  3. 2025
  4. Bill Karageozis as liquidator of Green Power Saver Australia Pty Ltd v. Green Power Saver Australia Pty Ltd - [2025] QMC 22

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

Bill Karageozis as liquidator of Green Power Saver Australia Pty Ltd v. Green Power Saver Australia Pty Ltd[2025] QMC 22

Bill Karageozis as liquidator of Green Power Saver Australia Pty Ltd v. Green Power Saver Australia Pty Ltd[2025] QMC 22

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Bill Karageozis as liquidator of Green Power Saver Australia Pty Ltd v. Green Power Saver Australia Pty Ltd [2025] QMC 22

PARTIES:

Bill Karageozis as liquidator of Green Power Saver Australia Pty Ltd

(First Plaintiff)

&

Green Power Saver Australia Pty Ltd

(Second Plaintiff)

v

Praveen Kumar

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

M8496/25

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

28/08/25

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane Magistrates Court

HEARING DATE:

On the Papers

MAGISTRATE:

Pinder

ORDER:

  1. Pursuant to rule 117 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules service of the claim and statement of claim filed 19 May 2025 is taken to have been served on the defendant on 7 July 2025.
  1. Costs are reserved.

CATCHWORDS:

Civil Procedure – Informal Service – where Plaintiff emailed claim & statement of claim to defendant and defendant acknowledged receipt – r 117 UCPR.

CASES

AMCI Pty Ltd v Corcoal Management Pty Ltd & Ors [2013] QSC 50.

Cardillo v Moreton Bay Trailer Boat Club Incorporated [2021] QDC 75

Egan v Posman (2018) QDC 53

Ischebeck Titan (Australia) Pty Ltd v Formconnect Pty Ltd & Ors (2024) QDC 48

SOLICITORS:

Plaintiff – Romans & Romans Lawyers

Defendant – No appearance

Introduction

  1. [1]
    The first plaintiff (as liquidator) and the second plaintiff (in liquidation) bring suit against Ms Praveen Kumar claiming $131,954.00 in relation to what is alleged to be an unreasonable director-related transaction pursuant to s 588FDA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Commonwealth). The plaintiffs have been unable to serve the defendant as required by the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR).[1]

The application

  1. [2]
    The plaintiffs seek orders that:
  1. Pursuant to rule 117 (UCPR) service of the claim and statement of claim filed 19 May 2025 is deemed to have been effected on 7 July 2025
  1. Costs reserved.
  1. [3]
    The plaintiffs seek to proceed ex parté, that is without the application being served, which is obviously understandable in terms of the relief sought.
  1. [4]
    The application seeks a decision without oral hearing pursuant to rule 489 (UCPR).
  1. [5]
    The plaintiffs have complied with the requirements of rule 490 (UCPR), including attaching a notice in the approved form and accompanying with the application the draft order and written submissions in support.

The relevant rule

  1. [6]
    The relevant rule is rule 117.
  1. [7]
    It provides as follows:

Informal service

If-

  1. for any reason a document is not served as required by this chapter but the document or a copy of it came into the possession of the person to be served; and
  1. The court is satisfied on the evidence before it that the document came into the person’s possession on or before a particular day.

The court may, by order, decide that the possession of the document is service for these rules on the day it came into the person’s possession, or another day stated in the order.

  1. [8]
    The leading authority in relation to informal service is AMCI Pty Ltd v Corcoal Management Pty Ltd & Ors.[2]
  1. [9]
    That decision of Jackson J considered service on a defendant who was outside Australia. After discussing substituted service under rule 116 (4) UCPR for service of a person outside of Queensland, His Honour concluded that rule 117 UCPR should be interpreted as applying also to proceedings where service was outside of Australia.[3]
  1. [10]
    In the present proceeding, the defendant is outside Queensland, apparently residing in Victoria. An originating process for service outside Queensland must be served in accordance with the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Commonwealth).[4]
  1. [11]
    His Honour did observe that:

“The court exercising jurisdiction over a defendant which has no other apparent ties to the state of Queensland is a relevant factor to take into account in deciding whether, as a matter of discretion, informal service should be ordered under rule 117.”[5]

  1. [12]
    In respect of the discretion to be exercised with respect to granting informal service under rule 117 UCPR His Honour said:

“There is no uniformity in the rules of court in different Australian jurisdictions as to what will be sufficient for satisfactory informal service by reason of receipt of or attention being drawn to a document.”[6]

  1. [13]
    AMCI Pty Ltd v Corcoal Management Pty Ltd & Ors was followed in Cardillo v Moreton Bay Trailer Boat Club Incorporated[7], a decision of Muir DCJ (as Her Honour then was).
  1. [14]
    Her Honour quoting from Jackson J in AMCI Pty Ltd found –

“There are no rigid rules in relation to how the discretion under UCRP rule 117 should be exercised.

It follows that each case turns on its facts.”[8]

  1. [15]
    Her Honour considered, but distinguished the decision of Porter KC DCJ in Egan v Posman.[9] The relevant facts causing that decision to be distinguishable were:
  1. First actual service had been reasonably attempted on Posman – whereas in Cardillo, Her Honour observed “the applicant ought to have made more of an effort to serve the counterclaim before falling back on the power under rule 117.”
  1. In Posman, the document came into the possession of a senior litigation secretary at a legal firm of the defendant.
  1. [16]
    Her Honour concluded that the fact that the respondent had now become aware that the counterclaim came into the applicant’s possession – does not justify the exercise of the discretion to order informal service in that case.[10]
  1. [17]
    Important to the consideration of the exercise of the discretion Her Honour said:

“Secondly, in the present case there is no cogent evidence that there were any or significant legal or practical difficulties in affecting service of the defence and counterclaim on the applicant personally…

Even if there were difficulties, again the observation of Justice Jackson in AMCI that UCPR 117 is not intended to resolve the difficulties in the matter of service required by the UCPR – is most apposite”[11]

  1. [18]
    Her Honour further observed in relation to whether reasonable efforts had been made to serve the counter claim on the applicant that:

“This is most unsatisfactory. One attempt at service in a year is simply not reasonable in the circumstances of this case. That it was an expensive attempt does not change this.”[12]

  1. [19]
    Both Jackson J in AMCI and Muir DCJ (as Her Honor then was) in Cardillo concluded that relevant to the exercise of the discretion under rule 117, were the applicants’ attempts to serve the document as required by the UCPR. Indeed, Porter KC DCJ in Egan v Posman also found in relation to the exercise of the discretion that relevant to it was “actual service has been reasonably attempted”.[13]
  1. [20]
    In a recent decision, His Honour Judge Andreatidis KC DCJ made an order for informal service in Ischebeck Titan (Australia) Pty Ltd v Formconnect Pty Ltd & Ors.[14]
  1. [21]
    His Honour, in relatively concise reasons, was satisfied that the plaintiff’s solicitors sent a copy of the claim and statement of claim to an email address for the second defendant and that the second defendant had responded by email acknowledging receipt of the documents and asking to start a payment plan. His Honour did not consider or discuss the issue of proof of actual service having been reasonably attempted.
  1. [22]
    Notwithstanding that, having identified that the statement of claim had come into possession of the person to be served (the second defendant) His Honour made orders for informal service.

The applicant’s material

  1. [23]
    The applicant relies on the following material:
  • Affidavit Noah Tindiglia filed 9 July 2025.
  1. [24]
    In her affidavit, Ms Tindiglia deposes to the following:
  • The second plaintiff was ordered into liquidation on 19 December 2024 and the first plaintiff was appointed liquidator.
  • An employee of the liquidator had corresponded with the defendant at email address [email protected].[15]
  • At 11:19am she emailed to [email protected] a copy of the claim and statement of claim and form 1 (under Service and Execution of Process Act).[16]
  • At 3:52pm on 7 July 2025, she received a response by email under the hand of “Praveen” from email address [email protected] which acknowledged the earlier email and set out responses in respect of the claim.[17]

Attempts at service

  1. [25]
    The plaintiff’s outline does not seek to rely on an affidavit of Graham Madders filed 9 July 2025.
  1. [26]
    That affidavit has been filed in the proceedings and confirms that Mr Madders (a process server) attempted service upon the defendant at an address at 12 Argyle Way Wantirna South, Victoria.

Disposition

  1. [27]
    There are no rigid rules in relation to how the discretion under rule 117 UCPR should be exercised, and each case turns on its facts.[18]
  1. [28]
    Whilst proof of reasonable attempts at actual service is a consideration, that does not appear to preclude an order for informal service where otherwise the court is satisfied the requirements of rule 117 UCPR have been met. Andreatidis KC DCJ was satisfied in Ischebeck Titan (Australia) Pty Ltd v Formconnect Pty Ltd & Ors, where there had been an acknowledgement of receipt of the claim and statement of claim, to order informal service.
  1. [29]
    I am satisfied that the claim and statement of claim were not served as required by chapter 4 of the UCPR as personal service has not been affected.
  1. [30]
    I am satisfied that the claim and statement of claim came into the possession of the defendant (the person to be served) and came into the possession of the defendant at no later than 3:52pm on 7 July 2025.
  1. [31]
    Accordingly, I order as follows:
  1. Pursuant to rule 117 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules service of the claim and statement of claim filed 19 May 2025 is taken to have been served on the defendant on 7 July 2025.
  1. Costs are reserved.

Magistrate J N L Pinder- 28/08/25

Footnotes

[1]Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 105 and r 111.

[2][2013] QSC 50.

[3][2013] QSC 50 at paragraph 17.

[4]Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 123.

[5][2013] QSC 50 at paragraph 31.

[6][2013] QSC 50 at paragraph 32.

[7][2021] QDC 75

[8][2021] QDC 75 at paragraph 48 and 49.

[9](2018) QDC 53

[10](2021) QDC 75 at paragraph 51.

[11][(2021] QDC 75 at paragraph 53.

[12][2021] QDC 75 at paragraph 56.

[13](2018) QDC 53 at paragraph 36.

[14](2024) QDC 48

[15]Affidavit Tindiglia at para 5 and annexure NLT2.

[16]Affidavit Tindiglia at para 6 (a) and annexure NLT3.

[17]Affidavit Tindiglia at para 6 (b) and annexure NLT4.

[18](2021) QDC 75 at paragraph 48.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Bill Karageozis as liquidator of Green Power Saver Australia Pty Ltd v. Green Power Saver Australia Pty Ltd

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Bill Karageozis as liquidator of Green Power Saver Australia Pty Ltd v. Green Power Saver Australia Pty Ltd

  • MNC:

    [2025] QMC 22

  • Court:

    QMC

  • Judge(s):

    Pinder

  • Date:

    28 Aug 2025

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
AMCI Pty Ltd v Corcoal Management Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 50
5 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] QSC 50
Cite 2 - [2013] QSC 50
Cite 3 - [2013] QSC 50
Cite 4 - [2013] QSC 50
Cite 5 - [2013] QSC 50
Cardillo v Moreton Bay Trailer Boat Club Incorporated [2021] QDC 75
7 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QDC 75
Cite 2 - [2021] QDC 75
Cite 3 - [2021] QDC 75
Cite 4 - [2021] QDC 75
Cite 5 - [2021] QDC 75
Cite 6 - [2021] QDC 75
Cite 7 - [2021] QDC 75
Egan v Posman [2018] QDC 53
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QDC 53
Cite 2 - [2018] QDC 53
Cite 3 - [2018] QDC 53
Ischebeck Titan (Australia) Pty Ltd v Formconnect Pty Ltd [2024] QDC 48
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2024] QDC 48
Cite 2 - [2024] QDC 48

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.