Redmap Networks Pty Ltd v. Greentree

[2006] QDC 318

[2006] QDC 318

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 3668 of 2006

REDMAP NETWORKS PTY LTD ACN 082 956 036	Plaintiff
and
GRANT GREENTREE	Defendant

BRISBANE

..DATE 11/08/2006

ORDER

CATCHWORDS:  Uniform Civil Procedures Rules r 116 - order for substituted service - use of fax not accepted.

HIS HONOUR: This is an application for a special order for service under rule 116 of the UCPR. The claim is somewhat unusual. The plaintiff seeks to recover money paid to the defendant, once its employee, in the expectation that he would subsequently generate commission income.

According to the statement of claim, he failed to do what was required of him.  Service on him has proved difficult.  Certainly he has moved to Sydney, it seems, but the premises which at one time were his address and proved effective for the purposes of delivery of a notice of demand of the 6th of June 2005 which resulted in contacts summarised in Mr Salisbury's affidavit, have now been demolished.

The defendant apparently faces some trouble with the police.  On information, an attempt was made to serve him on his anticipated attendance at North Sydney police station on 27th of March 2006. 

Mr Carlsen, who knew the defendant, attempted to serve him on the footpath outside.  The target of service declined to cooperate but did not react in the way that one would expect a person who was not the defendant to react when approached with court documents naming Grant Greentree.

Further attempts at service were made on the 27th of April, the 1st of May and the 9th of May at the Sydney business premises of the firm where it was believed the defendant was then working. 

Mr Wooldridge, who was the person attempting service on those occasions, did not get past reception staff whose reactions were consistent with the defendant's being an employee but otherwise engaged on particular occasions.

It seems the defendant is no longer connected with that firm, which was named Nobell.  The most positive indication of how contact, at least indirect, might be made for purposes of effecting service concerns a firm of solicitors called Watsons located in Sydney who were believed to be acting for the defendant in respect of the prosecution he faces. 

That is in the form of a letter of the 13th of June 2006 from that firm to the plaintiff's solicitors, which advises, "We do not have instructions to accept service of any documents in any matter other than service of the prosecution brief of evidence in relation to any criminal proceedings."  That letter is headed "Re Grant Greentree", giving a reasonable amount of assurance that service upon Watsons now, if it is permitted by the Court, ought to draw the claimant's statement of claim to the defendant's attention. 

The Court will order under rule 116 that service of the claim and statement of claim on the defendant be effected by prepaid post to him care of Watsons Solicitors and Barristers, Level 1, 187 Liverpool Street, Sydney, New South Wales, together with a copy of this order, service to be deemed effective seven days after the taking of those steps.
Costs reserved. 

I note that I was not impressed by the suggestion contained in the application that service be by fax.

MS MURRAY:  Yes.  I'll take that back to the office.

‑‑‑‑‑