NISSAN FINANCIAL SERVICES NEW ZEALAND PTY LIMITED v CONSTABLE [2020] NZHC 2878 [3 November 2020]

NISSAN FINANCIAL SERVICES NEW ZEALAND PTY LIMITED v CONSTABLE [2020] NZHC 2878[3 November 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDDUNEDIN REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAŌTEPOTI ROHECIV-2020-412-75[2020] NZHC 2878BETWEEN NISSAN FINANCIAL SERVICESNEW ZEALAND PTY LIMITEDPlaintiffAND GRANT DAVID CONSTABLEFirst DefendantAND JENNY MARIE CONSTABLESecond DefendantHearing: (Determined on the papers)Counsel: C T Jolliffe for the PlaintiffJudgment: 3 November 2020JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTERThis judgment was delivered by me on 3 November 2020 at 2.00 pmpursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy Registrar3 November 2020[1] The plaintiff applies for an order for substituted service of the first and seconddefendants.[2] I am satisfied, having regard to the evidence filed, that reasonable efforts havebeen made to personally serve the first and second defendants with the plaintiff'ssummary judgment proceedings and that the proceedings cannot be promptly served.[3] The plaintiff does not have a residential address for the defendants. Theplaintiff has a physical work address for the first defendant and a work email addressfor him. A solicitor who had been approached by the defendants advised plaintiff'scounsel that he does not have instructions to accept service on behalf of the defendants.At the request of the solicitor for the plaintiff, that solicitor said he would try andobtain instructions. Follow-ups to that solicitor resulted in the solicitor advising thathis firm would not be acting, and advice that he would speak to the first defendant totry to confirm representation and would provide an update. Nothing further has beenforthcoming at the time this application was filed.[4] Further, the enquiry efforts by the plaintiff's Christchurch process serversuggest it would be unwise to attempt personal service on the first defendant at hisplace of work.[5] The plaintiff has confirmed it has working cell phone numbers for bothdefendants.[6] I am satisfied it is appropriate there be an order in terms of paras 1.1 and 1.2of the interlocutory application dated 22 October 2020 for an order dispensing withpersonal service.[7] In addition to the text message proposed at paras 1.2(a) and (b) of theapplication, the text message shall advise the following:The High Court has ordered that unless you, within five working days fromthe date of this text, make contact with Anthony Harper to arrange receipt ofthe Court documents, you will be deemed to have received those documentswhich seek judgment against you for $633,466 plus interest and costs.[8] In addition, a copy of this order and a copy of the proceedings are to be emailedto the work email address for the first defendant set out in para 7.5 of the affidavit ofSophie Maree Judson sworn 22 October 2020.[9] In addition, a copy of this order and a copy of the proceedings are to be postedto the first defendant at his work address marked "Private and Confidential".[10] A copy of this order and a copy of the proceedings are to be sent toMatthew Edwards, solicitor of Berry & Co, Queenstown, with a request that he bringthis order and the proceedings to the attention of the first and second defendants.[11] The documents will be treated as served three working days after thecompletion of the above steps.[12] Costs are reserved.__________________________________Associate Judge LesterSolicitors:Anthony Harper, ChristchurchBerry & Co, Queenstown