ANZ Banking Group Ltd v Smalley & Anor [2012] QDC 80
1-1
[2012] QDC 80
DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE ROBIN QC
No 473 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND BANK GROUP
LIMITED Plaintiff
and
CHRISTIAN GEOFFREY SMALLEY & ANOR Defendants
BRISBANE
..DATE 16/04/2012
ORDER
CATCHWORDS
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 116, r 693
Application "on the papers" for substituted service of claim
and statement of claim for moneys owing under a mortgage and
possession of the premises - premises on Russell Island also
defendant's electoral roll address but he is there only
intermittently - history of attempts at service justifies
finding personal service impracticable - text message to
defendant's mobile phone number advising making of the order
required to be sent - costs made "costs in the cause" -
indemnity costs refused
-- 1 of 5 --
1-2 ORDER
1
10
20
30
40
50
60
HIS HONOUR: The court has determined an application "on the
papers" in which the plaintiff/applicant seeks that personal
service of the claim and statement of claim on the "defendant"
be dispensed with and that pursuant to rule 116 substituted
service be effected by ordinary prepaid post to an address on
Russell Island.
My Associate has communicated with the plaintiff's solicitors
and confirmed that it's only service on the first defendant
which is to be dispensed with. My perusal of the file, while
that exercise was undertaken, indicates that the second
defendant has been personally served with the claim and
statement of claim at an address in Eagle Heights on the 22nd
November 2011.
The defendants, according to the documents to be served,
borrowed a sum in excess of $120,000 from the plaintiff and
offered to put up the Russell Island property as security.
The statement of claim alleges that as 10th October 2011,
which is some 5 years after the date of the loan agreement and
mortgage (9 October 2006), arrears under the mortgage were
$4,850.79.
It's alleged that the plaintiff was given the relevant notices
to trigger its rights as mortgagee including the right to
possession of the property, which is sought to be enforced in
one part of the claim, the balance being for a money sum which
as at the date of commencement of the proceeding was
$123,616.40 and interest.
-- 2 of 5 --
1-3 ORDER
1
10
20
30
40
50
60
The first defendant's address, as confirmed by his electoral
roll listing, is 50 Rossi Avenue, Russell Island, being the
address of the mortgaged premises. He doesn't reside there.
Process servers have located another occupant who advises
knowing the first defendant and that he regularly attends at
50 Rossi Avenue, Russell Island.
His mother resides at a different address on Russell Island.
She has advised process servers that she is the first
defendant's mother, that she is not in contact with him and
that, according to her last knowledge of him, he was residing
at 50 Rossi Avenue.
I ought to say that the advice from the occupant of the
property is that the first defendant doesn't reside there but
does stay there from time to time. A neighbour has confirmed
that. The island location, which means that process servers
are required to use a ferry and spend a considerable amount of
time attending at the premises and without much assurance of
locating the first defendant there, is prayed in aid of the
application and the court's finding that it's "impracticable"
to serve personally.
One would expect, assuming what the statement of claim says of
the circumstances, that the first defendant would be well
aware of his default and could be anticipating a proceeding of
the present kind. Assuming the process servers were indulged
by persons they did contact to the extent of reporting to the
-- 3 of 5 --
1-4 ORDER
1
10
20
30
40
50
60
first defendant that a process server was involved, he may
well know that a proceeding is on foot. It's a matter of
speculation, of course, but he may have heard from the second
defendant who has the same surname and has been served that
the proceeding is on foot.
In the circumstances, I think it's appropriate to provide the
plaintiff with some relief. I've also thought it appropriate
to improve on the draft order proffered in a number of ways.
Firstly, by dispensing with personal service only in respect
of the first defendant in paragraph one. Paragraph two
authorises the ordinary arrangement of sending the claim and
statement of claim, together with a copy of the court's order,
by prepaid registered post to the address of the mortgaged
premises.
That has been expanded to require also "sending him a text
message to mobile number 0411 834 995 notifying the making of
this order and that copies of the material served are
available from the applicant's solicitors. This is a way of
making clear to the “first defendant” (as he is to be
identified, rather than as "the Defendant") the implications
of what has happened. I have added to the provision that
service is effective 7 days after what's authorised to be done
has been done "so that time begins to run then for the purpose
of the plaintiff being entitled to proceed in default of
notice of intention to defend being filed”.
The plaintiff seeks costs of the application and on the
-- 4 of 5 --
1-5 ORDER
1
10
20
30
40
50
60
indemnity basis and that "the Defendant" pay them. Rule 693
is relied on as generating the necessity for the court to make
some order about costs unless the plaintiff is to lose all
opportunity of getting them.
The costs provision in the order initialled is that the
plaintiff's costs of and incidental to this application to be
assessed, if not agreed, be its costs in the cause as against
the first defendant. If the plaintiff ultimately succeeds
then I think it's reasonable that it get its costs.
I'm far from being persuaded this is an appropriate case for
indemnity costs. There may be a provision in contractual
documents justifying such a draconian and special order but,
if so, it hasn't been placed before the court. There's
nothing before the court to suggest that the first defendant
in any mischievous way is avoiding being served. There will
be an order as per the initialled draft.
-----
-- 5 of 5 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QDC/2012/080