State of Queensland v Tuyen Thi Kim Le

[2006] QSC 271

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

[2006] QSC 271

CIVIL JURISDICTION

FRYBERG J

No 2059 of 2005

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

Applicant

and

TUYEN THI KIM LE

and

DA VAN NGUYEN

First Respondent

Second Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 19/09/2006

ORDER

HIS HONOUR:  This is an application by the State of Queensland for orders that six named persons attend for examination on oath before the Court on a date or dates to be fixed.  None of the six named persons is a party to the proceedings.  The originating application was served on the two named respondents and the applicant has acquired the names of the six persons from the two respondents.  It has also acquired the addresses and telephone numbers from those respondents.

On the merits of the application, which has been heard in the absence of the respondents, the evidence satisfied me that it was appropriate to make the orders sought.  However, I was concerned about the question of service and about the question of whether the six persons to be examined should be respondents to the applications and should be included as such in the proceedings.

The six persons are named as respondents in today's application but have not been included as respondents in the principal application.  They were served by simply posting a copy of the material to them by ordinary post.  Ms Flann, who appeared for the applicant, informed me that this is a procedure which has been adopted in previous cases.    In the circumstances I am prepared to follow that precedent. 

However, I draw attention to the fact that it may be necessary to include these respondents as respondents in the principal proceedings, if it is sought to take advantage of the provisions in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, allowing service by ordinary post in interlocutory applications. As far as these six persons are concerned, this is the first notice that they have had of the application and it is, in effect, an originating proceeding vis a vis them.

I therefore leave open the question whether personal service is required and whether the service which has taken place has been adequate and also the question whether it is necessary for the respondents to be included as respondents in the originating application.  The Court does make orders against non-parties, as, for example, for costs, and at least in some jurisdictions, Mareva injunctions are issued against non-parties directly. 

The applicant is not able to argue the matter today.  I have not heard any argument on these points and in the course of the applications list it is not possible to have full argument today.  Consequently, I will make the orders in reliance on the precedent but without determining those outstanding questions.

I will amend the draft order to include a direction that a copy of the reasons for judgment on this application be served with this order.  With that addition there will be an order in accordance with the draft initialled by me and placed with the papers.

‑‑‑‑‑