Conias v Williams

[2006] QDC 265

[2006] QDC 265

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No BD949 of 2006

SPERO CONIAS AND MARKELLA CONIAS	Plaintiff
and
ASHLEY WILLIAMS	First Defendant

and

LUDMILA WILLIAMS  Second Defendant

BRISBANE

..DATE 10/07/2006

ORDER

CATCHWORDS: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 116, r 490(1)(b) - orders for substituted service made in application determined without an oral hearing notwithstanding applicants' failure to provide a draft order

HIS HONOUR:  This is an application "on the papers" by plaintiffs whose agents have been unable to effect service of the claim and statement of claim seeking unpaid rent and/or damages for breach of a lease agreement from the defendants.  An order for substituted service is sought under rule 116.

A commercial search has revealed that the first defendant owns property at 6 Carex Street, Bellbowrie.  Notwithstanding advice attributed to neighbours on both sides that he lives there, inquiries of a lady at the address itself are to contrary effect.  This information is hearsay of a fairly gross kind as communicated to the Court in Mr Hawkins' affidavit filed with the application on the 11th of May 2006.

So too is the information that the second defendant said in a telephone conversation with one Liza Sentinella ("agent for the plaintiff who has custody and control of this matter on behalf of the plaintiff and who has access to the plaintiffs' records") that "I am living with friends but you can send any information to P.O. Box 1362 Kenmore" or words to that effect.  This is said to have happened in a conversation at 10.42 a.m. on the 4th of April 2006.

I accept by a somewhat narrow margin that it is an appropriate case for an order to be made under Rule 116 for substituted service on the first defendant at the street address nominated and on the second defendant at the post office box nominated.  It is preferable it seems to me if both modes of service are directed in a composite order applicable to both defendants.

That can be achieved by the Court's making an order in terms of the application - and the Court makes an order in terms of the application in the absence of any draft order being supplied as the relevant rules strictly require.  See Rule 490 subrule (1)(b).

‑‑‑‑‑