Re Skaljac;

The case involved the Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia seeking a freezing order under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 against Mr Skaljac, who was charged with drug trafficking offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981. The Director sought the order because Mr Skaljac had been charged with an offence under section 6(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, and was liable to be declared a drug trafficker under section 32A. Freezing notices had already been issued under section 34 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act concerning the property in question. The Director was unable to serve Mr Skaljac, who could not be located, and sought a freezing order under section 43 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act.

The legal issues in the case were whether a freezing order could be made in the absence of personal service of the order on Mr Skaljac, and whether substituted service could be ordered under Order 72 rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules. The Director argued that the freezing order could be made without personal service because Mr Skaljac had not filed an objection within the 48 days after the service cut-off date. The Director also argued that substituted service could be ordered under Order 72 rule 4 because personal service was impracticable. Mr Skaljac did not appear in court to oppose the application.

The court found that a freezing order could be made without personal service because Mr Skaljac had not filed an objection within the 48 days after the service cut-off date. However, the court refused to order substituted service under Order 72 rule 4 because the requirement for service of the freezing order was found in section 46 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act, not in the Supreme Court Rules. The court held that the power to order substituted service was limited under Order 72 rule 4, and could not be availed of in these circumstances.

The court granted the freezing order as proposed in the minutes provided by the Director. However, the court refused to order substituted service under Order 72 rule 4 because the requirement for service of the freezing order was found in section 46 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act, not in the Supreme Court Rules. The court held that the power to order substituted service was limited under Order 72 rule 4, and could not be availed of in these circumstances.