State of Queensland v Tuyen Thi Kim Le

The State of Queensland sought orders for six named individuals to attend for examination on oath in a proceeding brought before the Supreme Court of Queensland. The two named respondents, Tuyen Thi Kim Le and Da Van Nguyen, were served with the originating application, from which the State obtained the names of the six individuals to be examined. These six individuals were not parties to the proceedings and were not initially included as respondents in the principal application. The State applied for the six individuals to be examined on oath in relation to matters relevant to the proceedings. The application was heard in the absence of the respondents.

The court was required to decide whether it was appropriate to make the orders sought by the State and whether the six individuals should be included as respondents in the proceedings. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the service of the application on the six individuals was adequate. The court also considered whether the service could be considered as originating proceedings for the six individuals, given that they had not been parties to the proceedings and had no prior notice of the application.

The court decided to follow the precedent of serving the application by ordinary post, as had been done in previous cases. However, the court noted that it may be necessary to include the six individuals as respondents in the principal proceedings if the provisions in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules allowing service by ordinary post in interlocutory applications were to be taken advantage of. The court also left open the question of whether personal service was required and whether the service that had taken place was adequate. The court made the orders in reliance on the precedent but without determining those outstanding questions. The court also directed that a copy of the reasons for judgment on this application be served with the order.

The court granted the application and made orders for the six individuals to attend for examination on oath, with directions for the service of the reasons for judgment on this application. The court did not determine the outstanding questions regarding the service and inclusion of the six individuals as respondents in the proceedings.