Scottish Pacific Business Finance Pty Ltd v Singh

[2025] QDC 78

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

 Scottish Pacific Business Finance Pty Ltd v Singh [2025] QDC 78

PARTIES:

SCOTTISH PACIFIC BUSINESS FINANCE PTY LTD
ACN 008 636 388
(Plaintiff/Applicant)

v

VIKRAMJEET SINGH T/AS VIKRAMJEET SINGH ABN 887 576 723

(Defendant/Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

558 of 2025

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court 

DELIVERED ON:

13 June 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 June 2025

JUDGES:

Judge Heaton KC

ORDER:

The application is granted.

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – SERVICE – IN LIEU OF PERSONAL SERVICE: SUBSTITUTED AND INFORMAL SERVICE – where the applicant sought an order dispensing with personal service of Claim and Statement of Claim – where the applicant sought an order authorising substituted service pursuant to r 116 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 – whether it was impracticable to effect personal service in accordance with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 – whether the proposed methods of service were likely to bring the proceedings to the attention of the defendant

COUNSEL:

Not applicable

SOLICITORS:

Dimos Lawyers for the Applicant

1. The application for substituted service (filed on 26 May 2025) is made pursuant to a Claim filed on 5 March 2025 against the defendant wherein the plaintiff seeks to exercise its rights pursuant to a chattel mortgage agreement entered into with the defendant (to finance a truck).  The agreement was entered into on 30 November 2023, and on 1 February 2024 he is said to have breached the agreement. 

2. Having commenced proceeding on 5 March 2025, process servers were engaged to serve the Claim and Statement of Claim on the defendant.  On 24 March 2025, a process server attended at the defendant’s known home address of 28 Trilogy Street, Glass House Mountain.  There was no response to the knocks on the door. 

3. A second attempt at personal service was made on 1 April 2025.  This time, the occupant of 2/28 Trilogy Street advised that the defendant was a previous tenant of the property.  This was also confirmed by the male occupant of Unit 1, 28 Trilogy Street. 

4. Further investigations failed to identify an alternative address for the defendant, however, his drivers’ licence recorded his address as the Trilogy Street address. A mobile phone number for the defendant was identified as well as a social media profile which posted two advertisements for trucks for sale, and listed the defendant’s mobile phone number. 

5. On 14 May 2025, contact was made with the defendant using the iMessage platform.  In the message communication, he was made aware of the cause of action, and the desire of the applicant to make contact for the purposes of service.  He responded to the message and seemingly acknowledged the entitlement for the applicant/plaintiff to recover possession of the truck, but thereafter failed to respond to the request for a conversation in relation to the location of the subject truck. 

6. On 17 May 2025, another attempt was made to contact the defendant using the mobile phone number.  The call was quickly diverted to message bank.  A follow-up iMessage was then sent.  A further request was made for him to make contact, as well as for his current residential address or the address of the truck.  The iMessage platform indicates that the message has been read, but no response has been received. 

7. As a consequence, the plaintiff filed an application for substituted service on 26 May 2025.  On that day, and email was sent to the defendant’s last known email address advising him of the plaintiff’s intention to make the application.  No response has been received to that email. 

8. In an application for substituted service, the threshold condition is that the Applicant demonstrate that it is impracticable to serve the proceedings on the defendant personally.

9. The evidence supports the conclusion that the defendant is no longer residing at the last known address and despite attempts to discover his current address, it remains unknown.  In addition, contact has been made with the defendant using iMessage and he has responded to that in a manner which suggests that he is aware of the outstanding issue in relation to the truck which is the subject of the Claim.  Further, he has been made aware that proceedings have commenced and arrangements for personal service have been requested of him, without success. 

10. I am satisfied that the Applicant has demonstrated that it is impracticable to serve the proceedings on the first defendant personally. 

11. The Applicant proposes, by the draft order supplied to the court, that service be affected in two ways;

    1.   By sending an SMS to the defendant on 0403 932 924 enclosing a pdf version of the Claim and Statement of Claim filed on 5 March 2025, together with a copy of the court orders; and

    2.   By emailing the defendant at [email protected] a copy of the Claim and Statement of Claim filed on 5 March 2025, together with a copy of the court orders. 

12. It is proposed that by undertaking those two actions, that service be deemed to have been done. 

13. I am satisfied that adopting those combined means of communication will likely bring the proceedings to the attention of the first defendant.

14. I make the order for substituted service as per the draft.