MQF v Corry

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	MQF v Corry [2000] QSC 416
PARTIES:	MQF (ACN 003 815 272) (Defendant) v MONICA ANN CORRY (Plaintiff)
FILE NO/S:	S4724 OF 1996
DIVISION:	Trial Division
DELIVERED ON:	21 January 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 January 2000
JUDGE:	Muir J
CATCHWORDS:	PRACTICE – leave to appeal against decision of deputy registrar renewing writ – service deficient and writ not accompanied by required documentation – inherent jurisdiction to review ex parte determinations – court entitled to have regard to any matters including further evidence – appeal dismissed.
COUNSEL:	Mr M. Spry for the plaintiff. Mr R.N. Alldridge for the defendant.
SOLICITORS:	Shine Roche McGowan for the plaintiff. Mullins & Mullins for the defendant.

1. The applicant defendant seeks leave to appeal against a decision of the Deputy

   Registrar on 24 November 1999 renewing the writ in this matter.

2. The writ was first issued on 7 June 1996 in respect of personal injuries allegedly

   sustained by the plaintiff on 10 June 1993. On 3 June 1998 the applicant’s solicitors

   filed a summons, returnable on 18 June 1998, to renew the writ. The summons was

   adjourned. On 10 September 1998 the defendant’s solicitors wrote to the plaintiff’s

   solicitors advising that the defendant would not oppose the plaintiff’s application to renew the writ. On 17 March 1999 an order was made renewing the writ from 7

   June 1998 to 7 June 1999.

3. On 15 April 1999 the plaintiff’s solicitors served a copy of the writ on the

   defendant. However service was deficient as the registered office of the defendant

   was in New South Wales and the copy of the writ was not accompanied by the

   document in form 1 required by the Service and Execution of Process Act.

4. On 11 June 1999 the defendant’s solicitors wrote to the plaintiff’s solicitors

   asserting that the plaintiff’s solicitors had failed to comply with s 185 of the

   Workers’ Compensation Act 1990 and with the provisions of the Service and

   Execution of Process Act in relation to service and that, in order to cure such

   irregularities, the writ required renewal.

5. On 20 July 1999 the plaintiff’s solicitors wrote to the defendant’s solicitors

   informing them that they would apply to renew the writ and that they proposed to

   effect service on the defendant’s solicitors. It seems that when the plaintiff’s

   solicitors were lodging the application for renewal and affidavit in support, they

   were informed by the Deputy Registrar that the application did not need to be

   formally made and that it could be done ex parte. The applicant’s solicitors

   permitted the Deputy Registrar to proceed to make an order renewing the writ

   without fulfilling their previously stated intention of serving the respondent’s

   solicitors.

6. It is submitted on behalf of the defendant that leave to appeal should be granted as –

1.	No evidence was placed before the Registrar suggesting that any of the possible witnesses to the plaintiff’s injury still had any memory of the relevant events;
2.	the defendant was not…