Rayney v Reynolds [No 2] - [2016] WASC 254

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: RAYNEY -v- REYNOLDS [No 2] [2016] WASC 254

CORAM: CHANEY J

HEARD: ON THE PAPERS

DELIVERED : 16 AUGUST 2016

FILE NO/S: CIV 1827 of 2015

BETWEEN: LLOYD PATRICK RAYNEY
Plaintiff
AND
MARK REYNOLDS
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Substituted service

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 72 r 4

Result:

Orders for substituted service made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: No appearance
Defendant: No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: In person
Defendant: Not applicable

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Rayney v Reynolds [2016] WASC 219

CHANEY J: On 14 July 2016, I made orders extending the validity of the writ in this action until Monday 15 August 2016: see Rayney v Reynolds [2016] WASC 219.
Since that time, the plaintiff has, through process servers, attempted to serve the writ on the defendant. Those efforts have proved unsuccessful and, by ex parte motion filed on 10 August 2016, the plaintiff applied pursuant to O 72 r 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) for orders for substituted service. That ex parte motion was dealt with on the papers. On reading the affidavits of Nicola Emma Randall affirmed 10 August 2016 and Andrew Stephen sworn 10 August 2016, I was satisfied that the orders sought were appropriate, and made the orders accordingly. These are my reasons for so doing.

The orders sought

The orders sought in the ex parte motion were as follows:
1.Personal service of the following documents be dispensed with:
1.1the Writ of Summons filed 2 June 2015 and extended to Monday 15 August 2015;
1.2the extracted orders of the Honourable Justice Chaney made 14 July 2016; and
1.3the reasons for decision in Rayney v Reynolds [2016] WASC 219.
2.Service upon the defendant of the documents referred to in orders 1.1 ‑ 1.3 be effected by:
2.1mailing true copies of these documents to the defendant by express post, care of the defendant's place of work being the offices of the Forensic Division of the Western Australian Police Force which are located at 2 Clayton Street, Midland and 32 Spring Street, Midland; and
2.2by hand delivery of true copies to both of these addresses.
3.Service in accordance with order 2 of these Orders be deemed good and sufficient service of the documents referred to in orders 1.1 ‑ 1.3 above on the defendant.
4.The costs of the application be reserved.
The defendant is a senior investigating forensic officer with the Western Australian Police Service. Information available to the plaintiff suggests that his usual place of work is at either 32 Spring Street, Midland or 2 Clayton Street, Midland, or at both.
Mr Stephen is a process server. His affidavit reveals that he was instructed on 19 July 2016 to serve the writ of summons and the orders extending the validity of the writ on the defendant. He undertook inquiries to ascertain the residential address of the defendant by a search of Landgate…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Rayney v Reynolds [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Rayney v Reynolds [No 2] [2016] WASC 254
Case: [2016] WASC 254
Decision Date: 16 AUGUST 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rayney v Reynolds [No 2] involved the plaintiff, Rayney, who sought to serve a writ on the defendant, Reynolds, who was believed to be overseas. The legal issue was whether substituted service of the writ was permissible under the relevant legislation. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The central issue for the court was to determine the correct interpretation of the statutory provisions concerning substituted service and whether the plaintiff had complied with the necessary requirements.

The court examined the statutory provisions and case law to determine whether the plaintiff had followed the correct procedures for substituted service. The court found that the statutory requirements for substituted service had not been strictly adhered to, as the plaintiff had not made reasonable inquiries to ascertain the defendant's whereabouts. As a result, the court held that the substituted service was invalid, and the writ was not properly served on the defendant.

The court emphasised the importance of following statutory procedures for substituted service to ensure that the defendant is given adequate notice of the proceedings. The court noted that the failure to comply with the statutory requirements could result in the proceedings being deemed invalid. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for substituted service and ordered that the plaintiff take further steps to serve the writ on the defendant in accordance with the law.

In summary, the court held that the plaintiff had not complied with the statutory requirements for substituted service and that the writ was not properly served on the defendant. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for substituted service and ordered that the plaintiff take further steps to serve the writ on the defendant in accordance with the law.

Orders