Legal Research
Cases
Croker v Ewen; Croker v Challoner

Croker v Ewen; Croker v Challoner

Case [2000] NSWCA 186 20 July 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Croker v Ewen; Croker v Challoner [2000] NSWCA 186

FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40736/99; 40798/99

HEARING DATE(S): 20 July 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 July 2000

PARTIES :

Clayton Robert Croker v Graham Ewen
Clayton Robert Croker v Dr George Challoner

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA

COUNSEL: Appellant in both matters in person
C R de Robilliard - Respondent in matter No 40736/99
M Lynch - Respondent in matter No 40798/99

SOLICITORS: Appellant in both matters in person
Parish Patience - Respondent in matter No 40736/99
Abbott Tout - Respondent in matter No 40798/99

CATCHWORDS: ADDRESS FOR SERVICE - address of post office - not compliance with Pt 9 r 6 - Sarikaya v Victorian Workcover Authority (1997) 80 FCR 262 applied - APPEAL - extension of time - decision below unarguably correct - grounds of appeal made no sense - extension of time refused - appeal struck out. ND

DECISION: In matter No 40736/99: Application concerning address for service dismissed with costs. In matter No 40798/99: Application concerning address for service dismissed with costs; extension of time to appeal refused; notice of appeal struck out; Mr Croker to pay Dr Challoner's costs.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
CA 40736/99

CA 40798/99
GILES JA

Thursday 20 July 2000

CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER v GRAHAM EWEN
CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER v GEORGE CHALLONER

JUDGMENT
1 GILES JA: I have heard this morning three applications, two of them identical in content. I have done so exercising the powers of the Court of Appeal pursuant to s 46 of the Supreme Court Act 1970.
2 I will deal first with the applications with identical content. Mr Croker has appealed in proceedings involving Mr Ewen and in other proceedings involving Dr Challoner. Part 9 r 6 of the Rules requires that he have an address for service "at which documents in the proceedings may, during ordinary business hours, be left for the person whose address for service it is and to which documents in the proceedings may be posted for that person." On 11 May 2000 the Registrar directed that Mr Croker provide an address for service which complies with Pt 9 r 6 by 18 May 2000. It seems that the address for service provided by Mr Croker until that time was 247 Crown Street, Darlinghurst, which it is agreed is the Darlinghurst Post Office. By notices of motion filed on 18 May 2000, one in each appeal, Mr Croker has sought orders to the effect that the Registrar's direction be set aside and that he be permitted to continue to use the address 247 Crown Street, Darlinghurst as his address for service.
3 It may be that there has been procedural inelegance in all this. Mr Croker was required under the Rules to have an address for service complying with Pt 9 r 6, and the Registrar's direction was really only a direction that he comply with the Rules. On one view it was for Mr Croker to apply to be…

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 Croker v Ewen; Croker v Challoner

Details

AGLC: Croker v Ewen; Croker v Challoner [2000] NSWCA 186
Case: [2000] NSWCA 186
Decision Date: 20 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Croker v Ewen* and *Croker v Challoner*, the applicants, Mr Croker and Dr Challoner, were involved in separate proceedings concerning addresses for service. The primary dispute revolved around whether a post office box constituted a valid address for service under the relevant rules.

The court was required to determine whether a post office box satisfied the requirements of Part 9 Rule 6 of the relevant court rules concerning an address for service. Additionally, in one of the matters, the court had to consider whether to grant an extension of time to appeal a previous decision.

The court applied the principles established in *Sarikaya v Victorian Workcover Authority* (1997) 80 FCR 262, which held that a post office box is not a compliance with the rules for an address for service. The court reasoned that the purpose of an address for service is to provide a physical location where documents can be delivered and accepted, which a post office box does not fulfil. Consequently, the applications concerning the addresses for service were dismissed.

In relation to the appeal, the court refused to grant an extension of time, finding that the decision below was unarguably correct and that the grounds of appeal lacked coherence. As a result, the notice of appeal was struck out, and costs were awarded against Mr Croker.

Orders

Orders of the court

In matter No 40736/99: Application concerning address for service dismissed with costs. In matter No 40798/99: Application concerning address for service dismissed with costs; extension of time to appeal refused; notice of appeal struck out; Mr Croker to pay Dr Challoner's costs.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Croker v Ewen; Croker v Challoner [2000] NSWCA 186

Most Recent Citation

Tait v C Reynolds a Deputy District Registrar of the Queensland District Registry of the Federal Court of Australia [2003] FCA 619

Cases citing this decision · 13 of 13 shown

Melville v Body Corporate for Santorini By the Sea CTS 16829
[2021] QCAT 285 Para 8

…[23] [21][2001] QSC 387. [22](1997) 80 FCR 262 at 263. [23]Above note 22 at 263; see also Croker v Ewen; Croker v Challoner [2000] NSWCA 186 per Giles JA at para. 4; Kratzman (Toowong) Pty Ltd v Majorie’s Investments Pty Ltd & Anor (1986) Q Conv R 54-3221.…
Croker, in the matter of Croker
[2019] FCA 359

…oner Court of Appeal proceedings number 40798/99 Commenced15/10/99 (notice without appointment) 10/12/99 (notice with appointment) Determined 20/7/00 [2000] NSWCA 186, Justice Giles (judgment deals with both Challoner and Ewen appeals) Mr Croker files notice of appeal without appointment seeking to appeal orders of…
Soden v Croker (No 2)
[2016] FCA 15 Para 13

…complied with the Supreme Court Rules, and ordered that Mr Croker’s notice of motion be dismissed with costs ( Croker v Ewen; Croker v Challoner [2000] NSWCA 186 at [5] and [10]).…
CMF Projects Pty Ltd v Masic Pty Ltd
[2014] QSC 209

…orkcover Authority (1997) 80 FCR 262; Croker v Ewen [2000] NSWCA 186) or an address for service ( Quitstar Pty Ltd v Cooline Pacific Pty Ltd (2002) 168 FLR 213).”[13] (emphasis added)…
Attorney General of New South Wales v Croker
[2010] NSWSC 942

…igenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 42 Cachia v Hanes [1994] HCA 14; 179 CLR 403 Croker v Angus & Coote (Holdings) Ltd [2002] NSWCTTT 186 Croker v Challoner [2000] NSWCA 186 Croker v Challoner [2000] NSWCA 342 Croker v Commissioner of Taxation [2001] NSWSC 188 Croker v Commissioner of Taxation [2002] FCA 1157 Croker v Com…
Mogensen v Premium Grain Handlers Pty Ltd
[2008] WASC 145 Para 2

…x cannot be a company's 'office' ‑ any more than it can be a place at which documents may be left by way of service ( Sarikaya …; Croker v Ewen [2000] NSWCA 186) or an address for service ( Quitstar Pty Ltd v Cooline Pacific Pty Ltd (2002) 168 FLR 213). The possibility nevertheless remains that despatch by post to…
Van Stappen v Mackenzie
[2008] NSWSC 307

…ouch Butler Savage Associates [1986] 1 WLR 1102; 3 All ER 50 Sarikaya v Victorian Workcover Authority (1997) 80 FCR 262 Croker v Ewen [2000] NSWCA 186 Quitstar v Cooline [2002] NSWSC 402; (2002) 168 FLR 213 Macrae v St Margaret's Hospital [1999] NSWCA 381; (1999) 19 NSWCCR 1 Dorsatville Pty Limited v Loumbos Pty Li…
Croker v Commonwealth of Australia
[2007] FCA 1593 Para 15

…(‘the Supreme Court’) the same conclusion was reached about the same address – Darlinghurst Post Office ( Croker v Ewan; Croker v Challoner [2000] NSWCA 186). Mr Croker’s continued practice of giving an ineffective address for service which this Court and the Supreme Court have ruled is not a proper address exposes…
Polstar Pty Ltd v Agnew
[2007] NSWSC 114

…59H(4)(b), 459J(1)(a), 459J(1)(b), CASES CITED: Arcade Badge Embroidery Co Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2005) 157 ACTR 22 Croker v Ewen [2000] NSWCA 186 David Grant & Co Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1995) 184 CLR 265 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Ikin (2006) 61 ATR 706 Deputy Commissione…
Croker v Sydney Institute of TAFE (State of New South Wales)
[2003] FCA 942 Para 17

…In Croker v Ewen; Croker v Challoner [2000] NSWCA 186 (‘ Ewen ’), Giles JA considered an address for service given by Mr Croker as 247 Crown Street, Darlinghurst which was, apparently, the Darlinghurst Post Office. Mr Croker had been directed by the Registrar to provide an address for service that complied with Par…
Tait v C Reynolds a Deputy District Registrar of the Queensland District Registry of the Federal Court of Australia
[2003] FCA 619 Para 8

…ate the prompt exchange of documents in litigation, would not be achieved if only service by post were possible. In Croker v Ewen; Croker v Challoner [2000] NSWCA 186, Giles JA held, in a case also involving a post office as the address for service and a rule in identical terms, that the use of it would leave a gap…
Quitstar Pty Ltd v Cooline Pacific Pty Ltd
[2002] NSWSC 402

…14 The same approach was taken to a similar provision in Croker v Ewen [2000] NSWCA 186 (Giles JA) and is also appropriate here. There is an intention that service by physical delivery, rather than posting, should be available to a party preferring that method. Strict time limits apply in this area and serious cons…
Grayprop Pty Ltd v Maharaj International Pty Ltd
[2001] QSC 387

…notice of exercise of option actually received by the plaintiff Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 347, s 347(1) Croker v Ewen; Croker v Challoner [2000] NSWCA 186 (unreported 20 July 2000) Elizabeth City Centre v Corralyn Pty Ltd (1994) 63 SASR 235 Kratzman (Toowong) Pty Ltd v Majorie’s Investments Pty Ltd & Anor (19…

View all 13 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 1 of 1 shown

Sarikaya v Victorian Workcover Authority
[1997] FCA 1372

…matter No 40798/99 CATCHWORDS: ADDRESS FOR SERVICE - address of post office - not compliance with Pt 9 r 6 - Sarikaya v Victorian Workcover Authority (1997) 80 FCR 262 applied - APPEAL - extension of time - decision below unarguably correct - grounds of appeal made no sense - extension of time refused - appeal struc…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Local Government Act 1993 (TAS)
1 mention
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
1 mention

CITATION:	Croker v Ewen; Croker v Challoner [2000] NSWCA 186
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40736/99; 40798/99
HEARING DATE(S):	20 July 2000
JUDGMENT DATE:	20 July 2000
PARTIES :	Clayton Robert Croker v Graham Ewen Clayton Robert Croker v Dr George Challoner
JUDGMENT OF:	Giles JA

COUNSEL:	Appellant in both matters in person C R de Robilliard - Respondent in matter No 40736/99 M Lynch - Respondent in matter No 40798/99
SOLICITORS:	Appellant in both matters in person Parish Patience - Respondent in matter No 40736/99 Abbott Tout - Respondent in matter No 40798/99
CATCHWORDS:	ADDRESS FOR SERVICE - address of post office - not compliance with Pt 9 r 6 - Sarikaya v Victorian Workcover Authority (1997) 80 FCR 262 applied - APPEAL - extension of time - decision below unarguably correct - grounds of appeal made no sense - extension of time refused - appeal struck out. ND
DECISION:	In matter No 40736/99: Application concerning address for service dismissed with costs. In matter No 40798/99: Application concerning address for service dismissed with costs; extension of time to appeal refused; notice of appeal struck out; Mr Croker to pay Dr Challoner's costs.