Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v David

In the matter of Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v David, the plaintiff sought to serve a writ and amended statement of claim on the defendant, whose whereabouts were unknown but believed to be in Ghana. The plaintiff applied for substituted service, contending that the defendant had a current connection with premises in Victoria, known email addresses, and solicitors on the record in a related proceeding. The primary judge declined to make a substituted service order, ruling that the plaintiff should first attempt service under the rules governing service outside of Australia. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the proposed methods of substituted service would likely bring the documents to the defendant's attention.

The court was tasked with determining whether the primary judge erred in directing the plaintiff to attempt service outside of Australia and whether new evidence should be admitted in the appeal. The court considered the principles governing substituted service under the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) rr 6.10, 7.03, 77.06, and whether the plaintiff had discharged the onus of establishing a sufficient current connection with Victoria to justify substituted service. The court examined the evidence regarding the defendant's connections to Victoria, including the defendant's known email addresses and the presence of solicitors on the record in a related proceeding. The court also assessed the likelihood of the proposed substituted service methods reaching the defendant.

The court held that the primary judge did not err in directing the plaintiff to attempt service outside of Australia. The court found that the plaintiff had not established a sufficient current connection with Victoria to justify substituted service. The court concluded that the proposed methods of substituted service were unlikely to bring the documents to the defendant's attention. The court also held that new evidence should not be admitted in the appeal, as it did not meet the criteria for exceptional circumstances. The appeal was dismissed.