Hochroth v Milecki; Mann v Milecki; Naumburger v Milecki

[2018] NSWSC 112

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Hochroth v Milecki; Mann v Milecki; Naumburger v Milecki [2018] NSWSC 112

Hearing dates:

2 February 2018

Decision date:

02 February 2018

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

McCallum J

Decision:

Order for substituted service allowing the pleadings to be served by email addressed to the defendants’ solicitor

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE – application for substituted service

Legislation Cited:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 10.14

Cases Cited:

In the Matter of South Head District Synagogue (Sydney) (Administrators Appointed) [2017] NSWSC 823

Category:

Procedural and other rulings

Parties:

Proceedings 2017/292255:
James Hochroth (plaintiff)
Rabbi Benzion Milecki (defendant)

 

Proceedings 2017/292321:
Curtis Mann (plaintiff)
Rabbi Benzion Milecki (defendant)

  Proceedings 2017/29322:
Rodney Naumburger (plaintiff)
Rabbi Benzion Milecki (defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
G Hansen (solicitor for plaintiff in each proceeding)

  Solicitors:
Harris & Company (plaintiff)

File Number(s):

2017/2922552017/2923212017/29322

Publication restriction:

None

Judgment

1. HER HONOUR: Before the Court are three separate actions for defamation, each brought against Rabbi Benzion Milecki. Each proceeding was commenced by statement of claim filed 27 September 2017.

2. At the time the proceedings were commenced, Mr Hansen, the solicitor for each plaintiff, was aware that a Mr Tassel of Pikes Verekers Lawyers was or had from time to time acted as the solicitor for the defendant. Mr Hansen asked Mr Tassel if he had instructions to accept service of the pleadings in the defamation proceedings and Mr Tassel responded that he did not hold those instructions.

3. Since that date Mr Hansen has taken a number of steps to attempt to effect personal service of each statement of claim, without success. His affidavit establishes a basis for inferring that the defendant currently lives overseas but is actively defending an appeal against a decision of Brereton J in proceedings brought in the Equity Division of this Court. The Rabbi was successful in those proceedings (see In the Matter of South Head District Synagogue (Sydney) (Administrators Appointed) [2017] NSWSC 823) and is now defending the appeal brought by the administrators against that decision. Mr Tassel is acting for him in the appeal.

4. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the pleadings in each proceeding cannot practicably be served on the Rabbi in the manner provided by law and that it is appropriate in accordance with the provisions of r 10.14 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) to make an order for substituted service allowing the pleadings to be served in the manner contemplated in the orders proposed by Mr Hansen, namely, by email addressed to the solicitor, Mr Tassel. For those reasons, in each proceeding I make orders 1 and 2 in the short minutes handed up.

**********