Hammond v Gerard Malouf and Partners

The matter of Hammond v Gerard Malouf and Partners was heard before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Mr Hammond, sought damages for professional negligence on the part of the defendant, a firm of barristers, for their alleged failure to adequately represent him in a previous proceeding. The central issue was whether the service of the originating process on the defendant's principal office complied with the requirements of UCPR 10.9, which governs the service of originating process on a legal practitioner or legal practice.

The court was required to determine whether the service was valid under UCPR 10.9, which mandates service on a solicitor or principal office of the legal practice. Mr Hammond had served the writ on the defendant's principal office, but the defendant argued that the service was invalid as it was not directed to a solicitor. The court examined the procedural requirements of UCPR 10.9 and considered whether the service on the principal office was sufficient to meet the legal criteria for valid service.

The court concluded that the service of the writ on the defendant's principal office was not compliant with UCPR 10.9, as it did not specify a solicitor. The court found that the proper method of service required the originating process to be directed to a solicitor or to be served in a manner prescribed by the rules. Consequently, the court ruled that the service was invalid and dismissed the plaintiff's claim for failure to properly serve the writ.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's claim be dismissed with costs to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. This decision underscored the importance of strict compliance with procedural rules regarding the service of originating process on legal practitioners.