The Court Of The District Court

714 Words3 Pages
This was a directions hearing before a judge of the District Court in a civil matter. The plaintiff was Dylan Siddle and the absent defendant was Wai Fong Lau. The plaintiff announced his appearance and his intention to seek a court order for substituted or informal service. Siddle spelt his name for the Court transcript and cited his right to do so under r 10.14 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”). Siddle addressed the magistrate. The plaintiff explained the general nature of the case and gave a chronology of unsuccessful personal service. Siddle stated that he had first filed a statement of claim in 2012. Siddle had since been unable to effect personal service on several occasions under UCPR 10.21 (1). Personal service must be effected within one month of filing in the District Court, and the plaintiff and his solicitors had been forced to file fresh proceedings on several occasions. The plaintiff noted this was because Lau changed his personal residence approximately every six months. Information regarding Lau’s whereabouts was invalid by the time the plaintiff had attempted service. Siddle applied for a court order to permit substituted service at Lau’s place of employment. The plaintiff stated he had recent information confirming Lau’s work address. The plaintiff’s solicitors had acquired this through social media investigations conducted within the previous two weeks. Moreover, Siddle had since watched the defendant’s car enter and leave the premises. However, Siddle stated personal service to a corporation was unviable due to the large boom gates and security team which had prevented entry. The plaintiff evidently used the two stage test applied in Syndicate Mortgage Solutions v Khaled El-Sayed. F... ... middle of paper ... ...that unless Siddle makes a successful submission for substituted service, the court would let the application fall under UCPR 12.9. This provision allows the court to dismiss a proceeding nine months after a statement of claim is filed. Disregarding the unsuccessful claim in February 2016, Howard DCJ stated the last submission was on the 26th November 2015 and there had been no significant progress since. Thus, the plaintiff was required to make another claim by 26th June 2016. Howard DCJ stated that this was in the interests of just, quick and cheap resolution of proceedings. It is not in the public interest to for public funds to be spent on a proceeding which had not seen significant development in four years. However, the judge also affirmed it is the interests of justice that the plaintiff use his best endeavours to pursue the court order prior to June 26th.
Open Document