Burwood Council v Wanless

Case [2013] NSWLEC 160


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Burwood Council v Wanless [2013] NSWLEC 160
Hearing dates:20 September 2013
Decision date: 20 September 2013
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Biscoe J
Decision:

(1) Orders as sought in the applicant's notice of motion relating to substituted service filed on 20 September 2013.

(2) Direct that the notice of motion for contempt filed on 22 August 2013 be listed for directions at 9.15 am on 11 October 2013 before the List Judge.

Catchwords: SERVICE- orders for substituted service.
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 rr 18.2(2)(c), 10.14, 10.26
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Burwood Council (Applicant)
Susan Wanless (Respondent)
Representation: COUNSEL:
C Middleton, solicitor (Applicant)
N/A (Respondent)
SOLICITORS:
Houston Dearn O'Connor
File Number(s):40831/11

EX TEMPORE Judgment

  1. This is a notice of motion by the applicant, Burwood Council, for substituted service of a contempt notice of motion on the respondent, Susan Wanless. The latter seeks orders that the respondent is guilty of contempt of court or disobeying or otherwise failing to comply with Order 4 of the Court's orders made in these proceedings on 14 December 2011, and that the respondent be punished by way of conviction and fined for contempt of court for disobeying or otherwise failing to comply with that order.

  1. The notice of motion for substituted service is supported by the affidavits of Thomas Pfeifle of 12 September 2013 and Carolyn Middleton of 13 September 2013. Mr Pfeifle is a process server who attended the property at which the respondent resides at 22 Austin Avenue, Croydon on seven occasions in order to serve the respondent with the Court documents, but service could not be effected. In the circumstances set out in those affidavits, in my view orders for substituted service should be made.

  1. Accordingly, I make the orders sought in the applicant's notice of motion filed on 20 September 2013 as follows:

(1) Pursuant to r 18.2(2)(c) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (UCPR) service of this notice of motion is dispensed with.

(2) Pursuant to UCPR Rule 10.14 and 10.26, in lieu of personal service, service of the notice of motion filed 22 August 2013 on Susan Wanless be effected by:

(a)   Placing the notice of motion, statement of charge and supporting affidavits of Martin Jenner (sworn 20 August 2013), Anthony Henderson (sworn 20 August 2013) and David Morley (sworn 20 August 2013) in the mail box for the premises at 22 Austin Avenue, Croydon ("the subject premises"); and

(b)   Within 24 hours after doing so, by posting a notice to the subject premises, addressed to Miss Susan Wanless, informing her of the fact that the said documents have been so placed.

(3)   Service will be deemed to have been effected 7 days after compliance with Order 2.

(4)   A copy of this order must be served with the notice of motion, statement of charge and supporting affidavits.

  1. I also direct that the notice of motion for contempt filed on 22 August 2013 be listed for directions at 9.15 am on 11 October 2013 before the List Judge.

Details
AGLC
Burwood Council v Wanless [2013] NSWLEC 160
Case
[2013] NSWLEC 160
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Burwood Council versus Wanless was heard before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Burwood Council sought to enforce a court order against Wanless, who had failed to comply with a previous court directive. The dispute centred on the validity of service of a notice of motion by the Council on Wanless and whether this service was sufficient to permit the Council to enforce compliance with the court's order. The court was required to decide if the service was valid and if it permitted the Council to enforce the order against Wanless.

The legal issues before the court included the validity of substituted service under the Supreme Court Rules, the requirements for such service to be deemed effective, and whether the Council's application for enforcement of the order was contingent on the validity of the initial service. The court needed to determine if the substituted service complied with the statutory and procedural requirements, and if it provided Wanless with adequate notice of the proceedings. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the Council's enforcement application could proceed independently of the substituted service's validity.

The court examined the statutory provisions governing substituted service and found that the Council's application for substituted service was in accordance with the requirements set out in the Supreme Court Rules. The court noted that the service provided Wanless with notice of the proceedings and that there were no grounds to deem it invalid. The court concluded that the substituted service was sufficient to allow the Council to enforce the court's order. Consequently, the court granted the orders sought by the Council and directed that the notice of motion for contempt be listed for directions.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Orders as sought in the applicant's notice of motion relating to substituted service filed on 20 September 2013.

(2) Direct that the notice of motion for contempt filed on 22 August 2013 be listed for directions at 9.15 am on 11 October 2013 before the List Judge.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.