Permanent Custodians Limited v Massey
[2009] QSC 4
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 Massey[2009] QSC 4
- Add to List
Permanent Custodians Limited v Massey[2009] QSC 4
Permanent Custodians Limited v Massey[2009] QSC 4
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO: | |
Trial Division | |
PROCEEDING: | Application on the papers |
DELIVERED ON: | 3 February 2009 |
DELIVERED AT: | Supreme Court, Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 29 January 2009 |
JUDGE: | Wilson J |
ORDER: | That the application be dismissed |
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT – SERVICE – where the claim and statement of claim had not been served on the defendant – where it was impracticable to serve the documents personally – where it was proposed that service be effected by email transmission – whether the proposed method of service was likely to bring the proceeding to the knowledge of the defendant Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 116 Miscamble v Phillips & Anor [1936] StRQd 272, cited |
SOLICITORS: | Gadens Lawyers for the plaintiff |
[1] Wilson J: This proceeding was commenced by claim filed on 18 September 2008.
[2] The plaintiff alleges that the defendant is and has at all material times been the registered owner and in possession of certain land at Sanctuary Cove. By a loan agreement dated 14 June 2007 between the plaintiff as lender and the defendant as borrower, the plaintiff agreed to lend the defendant the sum of $1,125,000.00, and the defendant agreed to give the plaintiff a mortgage over the land to secure the money owing under the loan agreement. Such a mortgage was executed on 14 June 2007.
[3] The plaintiff alleges default under the loan agreement and the mortgage. It seeks to recover possession of the land and in excess of $1.15 million plus interest pursuant to the loan agreement.
[4] The claim and statement of claim have not been served on the defendant. This is an application for substituted service.
[5] Initiating proceedings ought to be served personally on a defendant. However, under rule 116 of the UCPR, if it is impracticable to do so, the Court may make an order for substituted service. I am satisfied from the material filed in support of the application that it is impracticable to serve the documents personally.
[6] In order to succeed on this application the plaintiff must satisfy the Court that the method of service proposed is likely to bring the proceeding to the knowledge of the defendant or someone representing his interests: Miscamble v Phillips & Anor [1936] StRQd 272.
[7] The applicant proposes that service be effected by email transmission to:
(a) the defendant at his email address of [email protected] mailto:[email protected] and
(b) the defendant’s solicitor Mr Tony Gray of Stacks Gray at his email address of [email protected] .
[8] On 10 September 2008 David Civico, a paralegal in the employ of the plaintiff’s solicitors, called a mobile telephone number believed to be that of the defendant and spoke with a male person who identified himself as the defendant. They discussed the outstanding loan. The defendant declined to give Mr Civico his residential address or any information as to his current whereabouts. Mr Civico asked the defendant to arrange for his solicitor to write to him. The defendant requested that the paralegal send him details by email at [email protected]. Mr Civico wrote to the defendant at that email address later that day; on 12 September 2008 he received a reply from the defendant from that email address.
[9] Subsequently on 15 September 2008 Mr Civico received an email from Mr Tony Gray at [email protected] confirming that he represented the defendant.
[10] Mr Civico wrote to Mr Gray again at that email address on 16 September 2008; the next day he received a response from Mr Gray from a different email address [email protected].
[11] There is no evidence of email communications from either the defendant or Mr Gray after the claim was filed on 18 September 2008.
[12] In all of these circumstances I am not satisfied of any of the following:-
(a)that the defendant can still be contacted at the email address [email protected];
(b)that Mr Gray is still a solicitor acting for the defendant;
(c)that an email addressed to Mr Gray at [email protected] would be likely to come to Mr Gray’s attention;
(d)that documents emailed to Mr Gray at [email protected] would be likely to come to the attention of the defendant.
[13] It follows that I am not prepared to order substituted service by the means proposed in this application.
[14] Even if I were going to make an order for substituted service by email, I would not be prepared to deem service to have been effected within only one business day of the sending of the documents to the email address. Further, I consider that in the circumstances of a case such as this, there should be more than one mode of substituted service specified – for example, service at an email address or addresses and service by post to the defendant at his last known residential address and or to the defendant c/- his solicitor at the solicitor’s address.
[15] In the circumstances the application should be dismissed.