Waverley Council v Bobolas [2015] NSWLEC 57
On the evidence provided by the Applicant, personal service of the originating process was effected on all Respondents in accordance with r 10.20(2)(a) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. Therefore, there was no basis to grant the orders sought in the amended Notice of Motion, which was accordingly dismissed.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 20 March 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Class 4 / Ruling on Amended Notice of Motion (interlocutory Application)
- Outcome
- Amended Notice of Motion dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- ['personal Service of Originating Process' 'ex Parte Procedure' 'service of Documents']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Class 4 / Ruling on Amended Notice of Motion (interlocutory Application)
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether personal service of originating process has been effected on the Respondents' "Whether there are grounds to set aside service or originating process as contended in the Respondents' amended Notice of Motion"]
Ratio Decidendi
On the evidence provided by the Applicant, personal service of the originating process was effected on all Respondents in accordance with r 10.20(2)(a) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. Therefore, there was no basis to grant the orders sought in the amended Notice of Motion, which was accordingly dismissed.
Court Disposition
Amended Notice of Motion dismissed.
Orders
- ["The Respondents' amended Notice of Motion filed 6 February 2015 is dismissed." 'The Applicant is to file and serve affidavits in chief including any expert evidence by an arborist and engineer by 27 March 2015.' 'The Respondents are to file and serve their points of defence, any cross-claim and any affidavits in...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment