Ask Funding Ltd v Rose [2011] QDC 145
1-1
[2011] QDC 145
DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE ROBIN QC
No 2081 of 2009
ASK FUNDING LTD
(ACN 094 503 385) Plaintiff
and
MOSHIT ROSE Defendant
BRISBANE
..DATE 11/07/2011
ORDER
CATCHWORDS
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 116, r 377
Leave to amend claim and statement of claim to increase claims
for interest and costs - complications respecting service on
defendant who had previously filed a conditional notice of
intention to defend
-- 1 of 4 --
1-2 ORDER
1
10
20
30
40
50
60
HIS HONOUR: The Court makes an order in terms of the
initialled draft which provides the leave necessary for the
plaintiff to amend its claim under rule 377.
The essential changes are to increase the amount of interest
nominated and likewise, the amount of costs nominated. In
both respects the claim will become open ended, whereas,
doubtless to the plaintiff's request, the claim for costs was
a modest one to fixed costs and likewise, the claims to
interest didn't leave matters open ended so that continuing
interest to the date of some future judgment and after could
be recovered.
There have been complications regarding service. The
defendant, who hasn't appeared today when called, on the
7th of September 2009, acting for herself, filed a notice of
intention to defend, said to be a conditional one; it appeared
to suggest that a more appropriate venue would be Victoria and
that if the case was to proceed, the plaintiff should pay all
legal costs and travel costs of the defendant and five kids to
Brisbane.
The defendant has not taken the steps required if she's to
preserve the conditional status of her notice of intention to
defend.
The plaintiff has encountered difficulties in effecting
service as the address the defendant has given the Court,
-- 2 of 4 --
1-3 ORDER
1
10
20
30
40
50
60
35 Almond Street, Caulfield South, Victoria 3162 turns out to
be a residential address where the defendant no longer is.
Judge Samios made an order pursuant to rule 116 on the
9th of June 2011 which appears to relate to all future service
of documents in the proceeding. It offers alternatives,
giving the relevant document, in a sealed envelope marked for
the attention of the defendant, "to an adult employed at
Worlds' Most Wanted Models, Level 9, St Kilda Tower at 1 Queen
Street Melbourne", or by mailing the document to the defendant
at that same address. The plaintiff was required to serve a
copy of the order on the defendant as well.
Adopting what seems to me the appropriate cautious approach,
the plaintiff, rather than elect between authorised modes of
service, pursued both. The process server was not let into
the premises, although the Court accepts the affidavit
evidence that there was a person inside who would not respond
to knocks on the door. The relevant materials were placed
under the door.
Whether the first mode of service authorised by his Honour was
effectively adopted may be open to argument; assuming there
was someone inside, we do not know whether it was an adult.
There could be argument about whether the documents were
"given".
In the circumstances, the Court is told from the Bar table
that the posted documents came back opened but marked "Return
-- 3 of 4 --
1-4 ORDER
1
10
20
30
40
50
60
to Sender" which in a way appears to be confirmation that the
defendant got them. The Court proceeds on the basis that the
plaintiff is in a position to file an affidavit establishing
service by posting. I'm inclined to think that ought to be
done but won't order it.
There's a difficulty in a relevant employee having left the
plaintiff lawyer's firm, however, they are apparently in
possession of the documents returned in the post which one
would think there bear marks indicating that the asserted
posting happened.
The Court is entitled to be reasonably robust given that
nothing excessively dire is achieved by the order made today.
The defendant will have intact her entitlement to resist the
making of any proposed orders against her which will cost her
money.
It’s sought and ordered that the costs of this application are
reserved.
-----
-- 4 of 4 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QDC/2011/145