Grow Asset Finance Pty Ltd v Bassi
Case
•
[2022] QDC 23
•17 February 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Grow Asset Finance Pty Ltd v Bassi [2022] QDC 23
[2022] QDC 23
17 February 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Grow Asset Finance Pty Ltd v Bassi involved the plaintiff, Grow Asset Finance, seeking to serve a writ of summons on the first defendant, Mr. Bassi, through substituted service. The plaintiff had already initiated legal proceedings against Mr. Bassi and a second defendant, seeking various reliefs including the recovery of monies under a rental agreement and guarantee, possession of property, and ancillary orders. Despite attempts to serve the writ on Mr. Bassi personally, the plaintiff filed an application for substituted service, relying on an affidavit and a report from a process service firm. The application was dismissed by the court.
The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the application for substituted service was supported by sufficient admissible evidence and, if so, whether it met the requirements for granting such an application. The court scrutinized the affidavit, which was the sole source of evidence in support of the application. The affidavit included a title search indicating Mr. Bassi as the registered owner of a specific parcel of land and a report from a process service firm detailing attempts to serve the writ and a conversation with a nearby resident about the occupancy status of the address in question. The court found that the affidavit did not adequately depose to the truth of the contents of the report and that the statements of belief regarding conclusions the court must make were not proper subject matter for the deponent to swear to.
The court further noted that the report itself was insufficient as it did not specify the identity of the agent who attempted service, making it unclear whether the same individual was involved in all attempts. The court concluded that the application was not supported by sufficient admissible evidence and, even if the material was admissible, it was not satisfied of the matters required to grant the application. Consequently, the application for substituted service was dismissed. No order was made as to costs.
The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the application for substituted service was supported by sufficient admissible evidence and, if so, whether it met the requirements for granting such an application. The court scrutinized the affidavit, which was the sole source of evidence in support of the application. The affidavit included a title search indicating Mr. Bassi as the registered owner of a specific parcel of land and a report from a process service firm detailing attempts to serve the writ and a conversation with a nearby resident about the occupancy status of the address in question. The court found that the affidavit did not adequately depose to the truth of the contents of the report and that the statements of belief regarding conclusions the court must make were not proper subject matter for the deponent to swear to.
The court further noted that the report itself was insufficient as it did not specify the identity of the agent who attempted service, making it unclear whether the same individual was involved in all attempts. The court concluded that the application was not supported by sufficient admissible evidence and, even if the material was admissible, it was not satisfied of the matters required to grant the application. Consequently, the application for substituted service was dismissed. No order was made as to costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Discovery & Disclosure
-
Admissibility of Evidence
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Print Management Facilities Australia Pty Ltd v Rizzoli [2025] QDC 74
Cases Citing This Decision
16
The Trust Company Ltd v Lui
[2025] QDC 157
Complete Credit Acquisitions Pty Ltd v Loudon
[2025] QDC 113
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Tidd
[2025] QDC 112
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
0
Bendigo & Adelaide Bank Limited v Wilkin
[2018] QDC 16
Permanent Custodians Limited v Smith
[2006] QSC 333
Bendigo & Adelaide Bank Limited v Wilkin
[2018] QDC 16