DITFORD v BROWN [1989] NSWCA 63

DITFORD v BROWN [1989] NSWCA 63

The court held that, while evasion of service by Mr Brown was not proven nor required, it was nevertheless impracticable to serve him personally due to his absence and forthcoming overseas travel. Therefore, substituted service on any person resident at his home address was appropriate under Supreme Court Rules, Pt9, r10(1).

Parties
Claimant: Grant Anthony Ditford; Defendant: Graham Vincent Brown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 September 1989
Procedural Posture
Motion for Substituted Service / Interlocutory
Outcome
Order for substituted service granted; costs in the summons.
Legal Topics
Substituted Service, Service of Summons, Contempt of Court
Practice and Procedure Substituted Service Service of Summons Contempt of Court

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grant Anthony Ditford

Claimant

Graham Vincent Brown

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Motion for Substituted Service / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether substituted service of the summons for contempt of court on Mr Brown should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, while evasion of service by Mr Brown was not proven nor required, it was nevertheless impracticable to serve him personally due to his absence and forthcoming overseas travel. Therefore, substituted service on any person resident at his home address was appropriate under Supreme Court Rules, Pt9, r10(1).

Court Disposition

Order for substituted service granted; costs in the summons.

Orders

  • Summons in Ditford v Brown to be returned before the Court of Appeal in motions on 9 October 1989.
  • Service on Mr Brown to be effected by substituted service on any resident at 43 Park Road, Sydenham, NSW.