Croker v Ewen; Croker v Challoner

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.