Gardner v MLM Property Constructions Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 855

Gardner v MLM Property Constructions Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 855

It was not practicable to personally serve the Third Respondent who was aware of the proceedings and deliberately avoiding service; therefore, substituted service as specified was appropriate to bring the documents to his attention and to allow the matter to proceed.

Parties
First Applicant: Sonia Jane Gardner; Second Applicant: Kevin Geoffrey James Haley; First Respondent: MLM Property Constructions Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Craig Randall Knight; Third Respondent: Stuart Noel Carnes; Fourth Respondent: Shane Lawrence Pritchard; Fifth Respondent: Christopher Potter
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Substituted Service / Interlocutory Application Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Application for substituted service granted
Legal Topics
Substituted Service, Service of Process
Practice and Procedure Substituted Service Service of Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sonia Jane Gardner

First Applicant

Kevin Geoffrey James Haley

Second Applicant

MLM Property Constructions Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Craig Randall Knight

Second Respondent

Stuart Noel Carnes

Third Respondent

Shane Lawrence Pritchard

Fourth Respondent

Christopher Potter

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Substituted Service / Interlocutory Application Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is not practicable to serve the Third Respondent personally and therefore appropriate to order substituted service under r 10.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

It was not practicable to personally serve the Third Respondent who was aware of the proceedings and deliberately avoiding service; therefore, substituted service as specified was appropriate to bring the documents to his attention and to allow the matter to proceed.

Court Disposition

Application for substituted service granted

Orders

  • Pursuant to r 10.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), documents are taken to have been served on the Third Respondent upon the expiry of four business days after posting to two specified addresses and advising the Third Respondent of their dispatch via phone, whichever is later.
  • Applicants have liberty to apply.