Secure Investing Pty Ltd v Rees

Secure Investing Pty Ltd sought leave to appeal a decision in favour of Rees, who had successfully brought proceedings for payment of fees against the company. The crux of the dispute was whether the company was served with the proceedings as required by law, which would determine the validity of the judgment against it. Rees claimed to have served the proceedings via mail, while Secure Investing argued that it had not received the claim, and therefore, the default judgment was invalid.

The court needed to decide if Secure Investing could present legally persuasive evidence to show that it was not properly served. The question hinged on whether the company had demonstrated a credible basis for not receiving the proceedings, which would require more than mere assertions of non-receipt without any corroborating evidence. The court was tasked with assessing the reliability and credibility of the evidence presented by Secure Investing.

In its reasoning, the court found that Secure Investing had not provided any legally persuasive evidence to support its claim of non-receipt. The company's argument was based on assertions without concrete evidence to substantiate its claim. The court concluded that there was no basis to doubt the affidavit sworn by Rees, which detailed the service by mail. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, affirming the original judgment in favour of Rees.