Chen v Blockchain Global Limited - [2020] VSC 751

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT

TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION LIST

S ECI 2020 03554

JIN CHEN		Plaintiff
v
BLOCKCHAIN GLOBAL LIMITED (ABN 82 601 628 497) and LIANG GUO	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	SLOSS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 November 2020
DATE OF RULING:	6 November 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Chen v Blockchain Global Limited & Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 751

---

PROCEDURE – Application for substituted service of originating process – Use of a process server – After several attempts process server unable to serve - Whether personal service impracticable – Plaintiff proposed several different methods of service – Court satisfied that methods of service proposed, taken together, would be likely to bring the originating process to the notice of the second defendant – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) rr 6.10(1), 6.10(2) - Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) s 7(1), s 59.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr A Vijayakumar (solicitor)	KCL Law
For the First Defendant	No appearance
For the Second Defendant	No appearance

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1

Substituted service – relevant legal principles............................................................................ 3

Is personal service of the originating process ‘impracticable’.................................................. 5

Conclusion........................................................................................................................................... 6

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

This proceeding was commenced by the plaintiff on 10 September 2020, alleging breaches of a Deed of Settlement made on or around 22 June 2018 between parties including the plaintiff, the first defendant and the second defendant. The plaintiff, Jin Chen, is a former employee of the first defendant, Blockchain Global Limited, and the second defendant, Liang Guo, sometimes called ‘Allan Guo’, was a director of the first defendant at the relevant time.

The plaintiff has made several attempts to effect personal service of the Writ and Statement of Claim on the second defendant, without success.

By summons filed on 27 October 2020, the plaintiff makes application for substituted service of the originating process pursuant to Rule 6.10 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) (Rules), in circumstances where he contends personal service of the Writ and Statement of Claim on the second defendant has proved ‘impracticable’.

In the summons, the plaintiff proposes adopting several different methods of service that he submits will, ‘in all reasonable probability, if not certainty’, bring the Writ and Statement of Claim to the knowledge of the second defendant, and accordingly, he seeks to have the Court make the orders sought.

The plaintiff has filed a tender bundle of affidavits and material in support of his application (TB) together with a short outline of submissions. At the commencement of the hearing, the plaintiff sought (and obtained instanter) leave to amend his summons to include a further method of service, whereby the Writ (including the Statement of Claim) will be taken to have been served on the second defendant pursuant to Rule 6.10 by sending the documents to the ‘WhatsApp’ account linked with the second defendant’s mobile…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Chen v Blockchain Global Limited

Details

AGLC: Chen v Blockchain Global Limited [2020] VSC 751
Case: [2020] VSC 751
Decision Date: 6 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Chen v Blockchain Global Limited, the plaintiff sought substituted service of the originating process due to the difficulty in personally serving the defendant, Blockchain Global Limited. The plaintiff, Chen, filed the application in the Supreme Court of Victoria, seeking to have the originating process served on Blockchain Global Limited through a process server as personal service had been unsuccessful despite multiple attempts. The legal issues at hand were whether personal service was impracticable and if the proposed methods of substituted service would be effective in bringing the originating process to the defendant’s attention.

The court considered the provisions under the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) rules 6.10(1) and 6.10(2) as well as the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) sections 7(1) and 59. The plaintiff proposed several alternative methods of service, which the court examined to determine if, collectively, they were likely to bring the originating process to the notice of Blockchain Global Limited. The court was satisfied that the proposed methods, when taken together, would be effective in achieving the necessary service.

The court granted the plaintiff's application for substituted service, allowing the use of the proposed methods to serve the originating process on Blockchain Global Limited. This decision was based on the court’s conclusion that personal service was indeed impracticable and that the proposed methods of substituted service would effectively reach the defendant.

Orders