Re QBE Insurance Ltd; Ex Parte DARMOKO
Case
•
[2002] WASC 34
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Re QBE Insurance Ltd; Ex Parte DARMOKO [2002] WASC 34
[2002] WASC 34
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, the case of Re QBE Insurance Ltd; Ex Parte Darmoko involves an Indonesian national, Andrew Arief Darmoko, who seeks a writ of prohibition against the District Court of Western Australia and QBE Insurance Ltd. The applicant alleges that the writ was issued and served without proper authorization under the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), specifically under Orders 5 and 10. The applicant contends that the writ was served out of jurisdiction without leave and that the service was defective as it was made on the notice of the writ instead of the writ itself. The applicant further argues that he never received proper service, and therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction over him.
The primary legal issues in this case revolve around the validity of service of the writ out of jurisdiction and the applicant's submission to the court's jurisdiction. The court must determine whether the writ was issued and served in accordance with the rules and whether the applicant's conditional appearance became an unconditional one, thereby waiving any defects in service. Templeman J considers the procedural irregularities and the applicant's actions, including the conditional appearance and the request for consolidation of actions, to assess whether these actions amount to a submission to the court's jurisdiction.
Templeman J concludes that despite the procedural defects in the issuance and service of the writ, the applicant's conditional appearance became unconditional, which indicates a submission to the court's jurisdiction. The court deems the applicant to have waived any defects in service by not challenging the jurisdiction promptly. Consequently, the application for a writ of prohibition is dismissed. The court finds that the applicant's actions, including the request to consolidate the actions, do not constitute a challenge to the jurisdiction but rather an engagement with the proceedings. Therefore, the applicant cannot complain about the procedural errors, and the application is denied.
The primary legal issues in this case revolve around the validity of service of the writ out of jurisdiction and the applicant's submission to the court's jurisdiction. The court must determine whether the writ was issued and served in accordance with the rules and whether the applicant's conditional appearance became an unconditional one, thereby waiving any defects in service. Templeman J considers the procedural irregularities and the applicant's actions, including the conditional appearance and the request for consolidation of actions, to assess whether these actions amount to a submission to the court's jurisdiction.
Templeman J concludes that despite the procedural defects in the issuance and service of the writ, the applicant's conditional appearance became unconditional, which indicates a submission to the court's jurisdiction. The court deems the applicant to have waived any defects in service by not challenging the jurisdiction promptly. Consequently, the application for a writ of prohibition is dismissed. The court finds that the applicant's actions, including the request to consolidate the actions, do not constitute a challenge to the jurisdiction but rather an engagement with the proceedings. Therefore, the applicant cannot complain about the procedural errors, and the application is denied.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Service of Process
-
Conditional Appearance
-
Unconditional Appearance
-
Waiver of Irregularity
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Komatsu Mining Corporation v CITIC Pacific Mining Management Pty Ltd [2025] WASC 372
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Mol Bulk Carriers Pte Ltd v Sin-Tang Development Pte Ltd
[2016] FCA 619
Cases Cited
10
Statutory Material Cited
0
Mabo v Queensland and the Commonwealth
[1986] HCA 8
Rizeq v Western Australia
[2017] HCA 23