Bank of Queensland Limited v Heseltine & Ors [2014] QDC 11
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Bank of Queensland Limited v Heseltine & Ors [2014] QDC
11
PARTIES: BANK OF QUEENSLAND LIMITED
(ACN 009 656 740)
(plaintiff)
v
HYLTON ANDREW HESELTINE
(first defendant)
and
KERSTIN THEA HESELTINE
(second defendant)
and
RICHARD TALLIS HESELTINE
(third defendant)
and
SUSAN JOAN HESELTINE
(fourth defendant)
FILE NO/S: 4422/13
DIVISION: Civil
PROCEEDING: Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 30 January 2014
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: On the papers
JUDGE: Reid DCJ
ORDER: 1. That personal service of the Claim and Statement of
Claim upon the Third Defendant and Fourth
Defendant be dispensed with.
2. That the Plaintiff:
(a) Post copies of the Order, Claim and
Statement of Claim bearing number
4422 of 2013 and of the reasons of His
Honour Judge Reid of 30 January 2014,
-- 1 of 3 --
2
to the Third Defendant and Fourth
Defendant at 176 Barrack Road, Cannon
Hill in the State of Queensland, 4170 by
prepaid express post.
(b) Email copies of the Order, Claim and
Statement of Claim bearing number
4422 of 2013 and of the reasons of His
Honour Judge Reid of 30 January 2014
to the Third Defendant at
[email protected].
(c) Notify the Third Defendant by SMS on
mobile phone number 0488 714 782 that
documents have been posted to him at
176 Barrack Road, Cannon Hill in the
State of Queensland, 4170 by prepaid
express post and emailed to him at
[email protected].
3. That service be deemed to be effected upon the
Third Defendant and Fourth Defendant at the
expiration of three (3) days from the taking of the
last step referred to in paragraph 2.
4. Costs be reserved.
CATCHWORDS: Substituted service – decision without oral hearing
SOLICITORS: Gadens Lawyers for the Plaintiff
[2] In this matter the applicant/plaintiff seeks orders that personal service of the claim
and statement of claim on the third and fourth defendants be dispensed with and
orders for substituted service upon them. The application is self-evidently ex parte
and the applicant has sought a decision without an oral hearing pursuant to the
reasons of Part 6 of Chapter 12 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (“UCPR”).
[3] The applicant has complied with the necessary requirements of the rules and it is
clearly appropriate that the matter be determined on the papers.
[4] An affidavit of Melissa Patricia Anne Winton filed 28 January 2014 sets out the
attempts that have been made to serve the third and fourth defendants. I conclude
that it is impractical to serve the claim and statement of claim personally upon each
of those defendants, as they appear to be taking deliberate steps to avoid service. I
also conclude that the method of substituted service proposed in the application is
likely to cause the documents to come to the knowledge of each of the third and
fourth defendants.
[5] In the circumstances, I order as follows:
-- 2 of 3 --
3
1. That personal service of the Claim and Statement of Claim upon the Third
Defendant and Fourth Defendant be dispensed with.
2. That the Plaintiff:
(a) Post copies of the Order, Claim and Statement of Claim bearing
number 4422 of 2013 and of the reasons of His Honour Judge Reid
of 30 January 2014, to the Third Defendant and Fourth Defendant at
176 Barrack Road, Cannon Hill in the State of Queensland, 4170 by
prepaid express post.
(b) Email copies of the Order, Claim and Statement of Claim bearing
number 4422 of 2013 and of the reasons of His Honour Judge Reid
of 30 January 2014 to the Third Defendant at
[email protected].
(c) Notify the Third Defendant by SMS on mobile phone number 0488
714 782 that documents have been posted to him at 176 Barrack
Road, Cannon Hill in the State of Queensland, 4170 by prepaid
express post and emailed to him at [email protected].
3. That service be deemed to be effected upon the Third Defendant and Fourth
Defendant at the expiration of three (3) days from the taking of the last step
referred to in paragraph 2.
4. Costs be reserved.
-- 3 of 3 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QDC/2014/011