Bidfood Australia Limited v Anderson

The plaintiff, Bidfood Australia Limited, sought to obtain an order from the court for substituted service of a claim and statement of claim against the defendant, Anderson. The court was asked to allow service to occur via sealed copies of the documents sent to a mobile phone number. This application was made without an oral hearing. The nature of the dispute was the defendant's non-receipt of the court documents, necessitating an alternative method of service.

The legal issue before the court was whether it should make an order for substituted service of the claim and statement of claim, using the proposed method of sending sealed copies of the documents to a mobile phone number. This required the court to consider the appropriateness of the proposed method and whether it complied with the relevant procedural rules. The court had to assess whether the method of service proposed by the plaintiff was both practical and permissible under the law.

The court dismissed the application for substituted service, stating that the proposed method of sending sealed copies of the documents to a mobile phone number was not a recognised or appropriate method of service. The court emphasised that the method of service must be both practical and in line with legal requirements. Additionally, the plaintiff was ordered to pay its own costs associated with the application, and if it sought an order for costs, it would need to provide a reason why the costs of and incidental to the claim should not be assessed on the Magistrates Court scale.

The final orders included dismissing the application for substituted service, requiring the plaintiff to pay its own costs, and stating that if the plaintiff sought an order for costs, it should justify why the costs of and incidental to the claim should not be assessed on the Magistrates Court scale.