Conias v Williams & Anor [2006] QDC 265

1 [2006] QDC 265 DISTRICT COURT CIVIL JURISDICTION JUDGE ROBIN QC No BD949 of 2006 SPERO CONIAS AND MARKELLA CONIAS Plaintiff and ASHLEY WILLIAMS First Defendant and LUDMILA WILLIAMS Second Defendant BRISBANE ..DATE 10/07/2006 ORDER CATCHWORDS: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 116, r 490(1)(b) - orders for substituted service made in application determined without an oral hearing notwithstanding applicants' failure to provide a draft order WARNING: The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal offence. This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for their protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those categories. You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings. -- 1 of 3 -- HIS HONOUR: This is an application "on the papers" by plaintiffs whose agents have been unable to effect service of the claim and statement of claim seeking unpaid rent and/or damages for breach of a lease agreement from the defendants. An order for substituted service is sought under rule 116. A commercial search has revealed that the first defendant owns property at 6 Carex Street, Bellbowrie. Notwithstanding advice attributed to neighbours on both sides that he lives there, inquiries of a lady at the address itself are to contrary effect. This information is hearsay of a fairly gross kind as communicated to the Court in Mr Hawkins' affidavit filed with the application on the 11th of May 2006. So too is the information that the second defendant said in a telephone conversation with one Liza Sentinella ("agent for the plaintiff who has custody and control of this matter on behalf of the plaintiff and who has access to the plaintiffs' records") that "I am living with friends but you can send any information to P.O. Box 1362 Kenmore" or words to that effect. This is said to have happened in a conversation at 10.42 a.m. on the 4th of April 2006. I accept by a somewhat narrow margin that it is an appropriate case for an order to be made under Rule 116 for substituted service on the first defendant at the street address nominated and on the second defendant at the post office box nominated. It is preferable it seems to me if both modes of service are directed in a composite order applicable to both defendants. 2 ORDER -- 2 of 3 -- That can be achieved by the Court's making an order in terms of the application - and the Court makes an order in terms of the application in the absence of any draft order being supplied as the relevant rules strictly require. See Rule 490 subrule (1)(b). ----- 3 ORDER -- 3 of 3 --