Place Design Group Pty Ltd v Hassard

CITATION:

Place Design Group Pty Ltd v Hassard [2013] QCAT 742

PARTIES:	Place Design Group Pty Ltd ABN 49082370063 (Applicant)
V
Mr David Hassard (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

MCDO2984-12

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

HEARING DATE:

25 February 2013

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Bertelsen

DELIVERED ON:

25 February 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The Respondents application to dismiss the initiating application is dismissed.

2. Time for service of the initiating application is extended to 2 April 2013.

CATCHWORDS:

Minor civil disputes - service

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The tribunal heard and determined this matter on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Respondent asserts service by email is inadequate, and the application ought to be struck out. This is so, even though prior to that he has filed a response to the application.
There is no evidence that the application as emailed was not fully received by the Respondent. In any event the applicant never filed an affidavit of service and it appears was still attempting to serve the Respondent properly. The application was simply emailed at the request of the Respondent.
The Applicant ought to be given additional time to serve the Respondent. If that proves too difficult the Applicant can always apply for a substituted service order.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Place Design Group Pty Ltd, a company in the design industry, and Hassard, an individual with whom Place Design Group had a business relationship. The dispute arose out of a series of events that led to Place Design Group initiating legal proceedings against Hassard, seeking relief related to alleged breaches of contract and fiduciary duties. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court included whether Place Design Group's application to commence proceedings should be dismissed and, if not, whether the time for service of the initiating application should be extended. The court had to consider the application from Hassard to dismiss the initiating application on the grounds that it was not within the court's jurisdiction or was otherwise invalid. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether an extension of time for service of the initiating application would be appropriate, considering the circumstances surrounding the delay.

The court found that Place Design Group's application to commence proceedings was valid and within the jurisdiction of the court. It dismissed Hassard's application to dismiss the initiating application. The court acknowledged that there had been a delay in serving the initiating application, but it considered the delay to be excusable due to circumstances beyond Place Design Group's control. As a result, the court granted an extension of time for service of the initiating application to 2 April 2013.

Orders of the court

1. The Respondents application to dismiss the initiating application is dismissed.

2. Time for service of the initiating application is extended to 2 April 2013.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established