Faranu Pty Ltd v Tropical Island Constructions Pty Ltd

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Faranu Pty Ltd v Tropical Island Constructions Pty Ltd [2023] QDC 107

PARTIES:

FARANU PTY LTD ACN 002 573 391
(Plaintiff)

v

TROPICAL ISLAND CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD ACN 645 336 634

(First Defendant) and

BELINDA MARGARET GOODHAND

(Second Defendant)

FILE NO:

BD2577/2022

DIVISION:

Civil applications

DELIVERED ON:

15 June 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 June 2023 (ex parte on the papers)

JUDGE:

Barlow KC, DCJ

ORDERS:

1.   The application filed on 1 June 2023 be dismissed.

2.   There be no order as to costs.

SOLICITORS:

Results Legal for the Applicant

1. The plaintiff applies, on the papers, for an order for substituted service on the second defendant[1] of the amended claim and statement of claim.

   [1]The plaintiff obtained default judgment on the first defendant on 25 May 2023, after serving it with the claim and statement of claim at its registered office.

2. The plaintiff’s evidence in support of the application comprises an affidavit of a paralegal employed by the plaintiff’s solicitors, in which she deposes that:

   (a)in the application for finance by the first defendant and the guarantee of that application by the second defendant, the latter’s contact details were said to be at a particular email address, at a physical address in Jubilee Pocket and at a mobile telephone number;

   (b)on 2 December 2022, a process server instructed by the plaintiff’s solicitors unsuccessfully attempted to serve the second defendant at the first defendant’s principal place of business stated in the result of a search of the company in the records of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (a copy of which is exhibited to the affidavit);

   (c)on the same day, the process server also attempted to telephone the second defendant on the number stated in the guarantee, but it “went to a loud beep after three rings then hung up;”[2]

   (d)the process serving company then undertook a “skip trace” on the defendant that resulted in information indicating that the second defendant lived at the Jubilee Pocket address;

   (e)she purported to exhibit a copy of “the affidavit of attempted service report” received from the service company, from which she quoted passages indicating that “our agent” had attended at the Jubilee Pocket address on two occasions in January and once in February 2023 but found nobody in attendance and, on the latter occasion, the agent also tried telephoning the second defendant on the number provided but it was disconnected;

   (f)on 15 February 2023 the deponent sent an email to the address of the second defendant stated in the guarantee and received a delivery report (which she exhibited) “confirming that the address was still actively receiving emails;”

   (g)the documents will “in all reasonable probability … come to the attention of the defendant” if sent by post, with a copy of the court’s substituted service order, to the Jubilee Pocket address and to the registered office of the first defendant and by email to the second defendant’s email address.

   [2]That is not what the report relied…