Norman v Cowell (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1366

Norman v Cowell (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1366

The evidence showed that reasonable enquiries had been made, the second defendant had been wrongly identified or named differently in some legal contexts, and extensive enquiries left the proposed substituted service steps as the only available method likely to bring the originating process to her attention. The delay in service was principally caused by the difficulty in locating the second defendant, so correction of the name, substituted service steps and an extension of validity of the originating process were appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedural Application / Notice of Motion for Correction of Name, Substituted Service and Extension of Time for Service
Outcome
Order for substituted service made. Period within which the originating process is valid for service extended to 31 October 2015.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'service' 'extension of Time for Service' 'substituted Service']
['civil Procedure'] ['pleadings' 'service' 'extension of Time for Service' 'substituted Service']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedural Application / Notice of Motion for Correction of Name, Substituted Service and Extension of Time for Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the name of the second defendant should be corrected under s 65(2)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether substituted service should be ordered under r 10.14 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' 'Whether the period within which the originating process is valid for service should be extended.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence showed that reasonable enquiries had been made, the second defendant had been wrongly identified or named differently in some legal contexts, and extensive enquiries left the proposed substituted service steps as the only available method likely to bring the originating process to her attention. The delay in service was principally caused by the difficulty in locating the second defendant, so correction of the name, substituted service steps and an extension of validity of the originating process were appropriate.

Court Disposition

Order for substituted service made. Period within which the originating process is valid for service extended to 31 October 2015.

Orders

  • ['Order 1 in the notice of motion made to correct the way in which the second defendant is named in the pleading.' 'Orders 1, 2, 3 and 5 in the notice of motion made.' 'The period in order 5 extended to 31 October 2015.' 'The proceedings stood over to 13 November 2015.']