Permanent Custodians Limited v Smith
[2006] QSC 333
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
- Permanent Custodians Limited v Smith[2006] QSC 333
- Add to List
Permanent Custodians Limited v Smith[2006] QSC 333
Permanent Custodians Limited v Smith[2006] QSC 333
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO: | |
Trial Division | |
PROCEEDING: | Application on papers |
DELIVERED ON: | 6 November 2006 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 6 November 2006 |
JUDGE: | Mackenzie J |
ORDER: | The application be adjourned to a date to be fixed |
SOLICITORS: | Dunstan Hardcastle, Solicitors & Attorneys for the plaintiff |
[1] MACKENZIE J: This is an application on the papers by a mortgagee in possession for substituted service. Rule 116 UCPR requires the applicant to prove that service in a way required by the rules is “impracticable”.
[2] All that is established on the material consists of three things. One is that when the estranged wife of the person to be served was served, she said she did not know his current residential or work address. The second is that a solicitor who contacted the applicant’s solicitor after she had been served told him that the sister of the person to be served was residing in the premises. The third is that when the woman at the premises was spoken to, she identified herself by name (which was not Smith) and said she was the manager of the complex and had no plans to vacate the premises. (The business carried on by the person to be served and his wife related to management of the premises).
[3] There is no evidence that the woman spoken to was the sister of the person to be served, nor that any inquiries were made of her to ascertain whether she knew of an address where the person to be served might be found, either at a residence or a workplace. Nor is there any evidence of other inquiries or anything else from which it maybe inferred that he is attempting to actively evade service.
[4] In the circumstances, it maybe an inconvenience to make further inquiries, but I do not think that the threshold question of whether it is “impracticable” to serve the document as required by the rules has been reached.
[5] In the circumstances, rather than refuse the application and incur further costs, I will adjourn it to a date to be fixed so that better evidence of impracticability can be placed before the Judge who ultimately considers the application on that occasion. The order is:
- The application be adjourned to a date to be fixed.