Seth v. Destiny Cosmedic & Wellness Clinics

[2007] QSC 249

[2007] QSC 249

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JONES J

Application No 251 of 2007

SEVONNE SETH	Applicant
and
DESTINY COSMEDIC & WELLNESS CLINICS	Respondent

CAIRNS

..DATE 17/08/2007

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:  This is an application made against the named respondent to comply with two separate sections of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2000. 

The first application seeks the respondent's compliance with section 27 to provide a list of documents in the respondent's possession relevant to the claim made by the applicant; that claim relates to personal injuries which the applicant claims were sustained on the 8th of April 2006 in the course of her being treated at the clinic operated in Queensland by the respondent.

The second application relates to compliance with section 20 of the Act seeking a statement from the respondent as to whether liability is admitted or denied. 

Those orders sought are uncontroversial in so far as they seek the respondent's compliance with the relevant legislation.  The difficulty that has arisen relates to the service of the application upon the respondent.  The respondent is sued under a business name which is not registered in Queensland.  Inquiries made of the business name shows that it was operated by a Ms Ruth Gibbs who lives in New South Wales and conducts a business under the same name in New South Wales.  Service has been effected on Ms Gibbs by a sheriffs officer Paul Hermans as attested to in an affidavit sworn by him on the 7th of August 2007.  That service on the 1st of August 2007 does not allow the required 21 days for response following interstate service.

Because of the routine nature of the application sought for the proposed orders I have determined to hear the matter notwithstanding the short service on the respondent satisfied that the principal, Ms Gibb, is well aware of these proceedings.  When her name was called before me today there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. 

The short service can be sufficiently dealt with by making a delay in the operation of the order to take effect 21 days from the service of the order upon the respondent and Ms Gibbs. 

That is the course I propose to follow in the interest of expediting the matter and to avoid the incurring of unnecessary further costs.

Do you have that draft order, Mr Ryall?

MR RYALL:  Yes, your Honour.  It provides for the change of the name of the respondent at this point.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  Okay.  It's in compliance with order 90‑‑‑‑‑

MR RYALL:  92(3).

HIS HONOUR: A further matter has emerged during the course of argument and it is by reference to rule 92(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules that the respondent ought to be identified by the name of the principal, Christina Ruth Gibb. It is appropriate in those circumstances that the name of the respondent be changed to comply with that rule.

For these reasons I make orders in terms of the draft initially by me and placed with the papers.

‑‑‑‑‑