Complete Credit Acquisitions Pty Ltd v Loudon - [2025] QDC 113

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Complete Credit Acquisitions Pty Ltd v Loudon [2025] QDC 113

PARTIES:

COMPLETE CREDIT ACQUISITIONS PTY LTD ACN 163 473 358

(Plaintiff)

V

AJLE LOUDON

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

1614/24

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane District Court

DELIVERED ON:

18 August 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 August 2025

JUDGE:

Porter KC DCJ

ORDER:

1. PURSUANT TO RULE 24(2) OF THE UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1999 (QLD) (UCPR), THE SEALED CLAIM AND STATEMENT OF CLAIM FILED 13 JUNE 2024 (CLAIM) BE RENEWED AND EXTENDED NUNC PRO TUNC TO 13 JUNE 2025.

2. THE APPLICATION IS OTHERWISE DISMISSED.

Pursuant to Rule 24(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) the plaintiff seeks orders that the sealed claim and statement of claim filed 13 June 2024 be renewed and extended to 13 September 2025. Rule 24(2) provides a discretion in the registrar to renew a claim where reasonable efforts have been made to serve the defendant or where there is another good reason to renew the claim. In my view, however, that does not confine the power of the Court to renew a claim. Where, as here, the claim was issued only one year ago, I am satisfied the claim should be renewed, though only for a year. That success is the limit of the applicant’s success on its application.

The plaintiff also seeks orders for substituted service of the claim and statement of claim pursuant to Rule 116 UCPR. The plaintiff submits that the defendant presently resides at a specified property in Kewarra Beach, 4879, that he is deliberately evading service and is not responding to communications to his mobile number.

In these circumstances, the plaintiff submits it is impracticable to serve the defendant personally, and that service by post to the Kewerra Beach address and sending the claim as a text message to a mobile number will bring the proceedings to the defendant’s attention.

The plaintiff relies on an affidavit of a solicitor sworn on 16 July 2025. Judges of this Court have continually reminded applicants that evidence tendered in substituted service applications must be admissible and, where practitioners seek to rely on Rule 430(2) UCPR, their affidavits must meet the requirements of that rule, as articulated in the authorities.[1]
[1] Bendigo & Adelaide Bank Limited v Wilkin [2018] QDC 16; Heritage Bank Ltd v Gleeson [2019] QDC 119 [38]; Middencorp Electric Pty Ltd v Intelligent Infrastructure Solutions Pty Ltd [2020] QDC 72 [9] – [10]; KV Projects Pty Ltd v Regal Bridges Pty Ltd [2020] QDC 261 [5] – [6]; Zurich Capital & Finance Pty Ltd v Williams [2020] QDC 277 [8] – [23]; Sunshine Phone Systems (in liq) v Martens [2021] QDC 36 [10]; Grow Asset Finance Pty Ltd v Bassi [2022] QDC 23 [11]; Wickham FV Pty Ltd v Lindeque [2022] QDC 170 [1]; National Australian Bank Ltd v Garner [2022] QDC 221 [16] – [17]; Faranu Pty Ltd v Tropical Island Constructions Pty Ltd [2023]…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Complete Credit Acquisitions Pty Ltd v Loudon and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QDC 113
Decision Date: 18 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Complete Credit Acquisitions Pty Ltd filed a claim against Loudon, seeking to recover outstanding debts and related interest. The dispute was heard and determined in the Queensland District Court. The central issue before the court was whether the claimant was entitled to an extension of time for filing the claim and whether such an extension would be just and equitable under the circumstances. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the delay in filing was excusable and whether granting the extension would cause any prejudice to the defendant.

The court examined the principles governing the extension of time in legal proceedings, focusing on whether the delay was reasonable and whether any prejudice to the defendant could be mitigated. It weighed the factors contributing to the delay and the claimant's efforts to mitigate the consequences of the delay. The court noted that while there were delays in filing the claim, the claimant had acted promptly once the need to file became apparent and had provided satisfactory explanations for the delay. The court concluded that the delay was not due to any fault or negligence on the part of the claimant and that the defendant would not be prejudiced by the extension.

Based on the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that it was just and equitable to grant the extension of time for filing the claim. The court considered the claimant's explanations for the delay and the absence of any prejudice to the defendant. Consequently, the court ordered the renewal and extension of the claim, effective from the original filing date, with the new deadline set for 13 June 2025. The application was otherwise dismissed, as the court did not find any other grounds for further relief.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. PURSUANT TO RULE 24(2) OF THE UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1999 (QLD) (UCPR), THE SEALED CLAIM AND STATEMENT OF CLAIM FILED 13 JUNE 2024 (CLAIM) BE RENEWED AND EXTENDED NUNC PRO TUNC TO 13 JUNE 2025.

2. THE APPLICATION IS OTHERWISE DISMISSED.

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.

CITATION:	Complete Credit Acquisitions Pty Ltd v Loudon [2025] QDC 113
PARTIES:	COMPLETE CREDIT ACQUISITIONS PTY LTD ACN 163 473 358 (Plaintiff) V AJLE LOUDON (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	1614/24
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane District Court
DELIVERED ON:	18 August 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 August 2025
JUDGE:	Porter KC DCJ
ORDER:	1. PURSUANT TO RULE 24(2) OF THE UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1999 (QLD) (UCPR), THE SEALED CLAIM AND STATEMENT OF CLAIM FILED 13 JUNE 2024 (CLAIM) BE RENEWED AND EXTENDED NUNC PRO TUNC TO 13 JUNE 2025. 2. THE APPLICATION IS OTHERWISE DISMISSED.