Ellivo Architects Pty Ltd v Stratis
[2014] QCAT 142
•17 March 2014
| CITATION: | Ellivo Architects Pty Ltd v Stratis & Anor [2014] QCAT 142 |
| PARTIES: | Ellivo Architects Pty Ltd (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Regina Karola Stratis Dimitra Elena Stratis (Respondents) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | MCDO2124-13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Other minor civil dispute matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Adjudicator Bertelsen |
| DELIVERED ON: | 17 March 2014 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Time for service of the application is extended to 15 April 2014 to allow the application to be reserved. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Service – extension of time for service – service to be within 28 days or an extended period of time at the time of service |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Application
On 17 October 2013 Ellivo Architects Pty Ltd (‘Ellivo’) filed an application seeking moneys owing on account of architectural services provided to the respondents Regina Stratis and Dimitra Stratis.
Service of the initiating application was effected on 17 December 2013.
On 29 January 2014 Ellivo filed an application to extent the time for service of the application ie extend service from 28 days subsequent to filing ie 17 October 2013 to 17 December 2013, the actual date of service, to enable default decision to proceed. That application was refused.
The reasons given for that refusal were as follows.
An application for extension of time for service cannot be made retrospectively i.e. where service at the time of service is out of time. The applicant should apply for an extension of time for service and effect service within that extended time frame.
The reasons were accompanied by a notation ‘but inform the applicant to make fresh application for extension of time for service and that will in the ordinary course be granted’.
Subsequently Ellivo filed a further application to extend the time limit dated 10 March 2014. This application is somewhat unclear but seems to be making the same request as that submitted in the application of 29 January 2014. The last sentence under the heading of request details on page 4 of that application requests time be extended ‘to serve the claim by a further 28 days from the date of the order in order to effect service’. If that referred to the original 28 days for service a further 28 days does not in any event place the actual date of service within that further 28 days. If simply a further 28 days is requested to reserve the initiating application then the order of 17 March 2014 extending the time for service to 15 April 2014 addresses that.
As the initiating application now stands the applicant has to 15 April 2014 to effect service.
0
0
0