SMITH AND SMITH V SINGH AND ORS HC WN CIV-2003-485-1169

SMITH AND SMITH V SINGH AND ORS HC WN CIV-2003-485-1169

The sealed substituted service order was properly obtained and there was no 'very special reason' or misleading of the Court that would justify recall under r.542(3) or the Court's inherent jurisdiction; accordingly the application to recall is dismissed and the substituted service order stands.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-924751c7_7935_4784_8752_345ca6177729.pdf
Parties
Plaintiffs: Lance Rodney Smith and Olinka Lorraine Smith; First Defendant: Surendra Singh; Second Defendants: Surendra Singh and Avinesh Surendra Singh; Third Defendant: Hutt City Council; First Third Party: Foster Construction and Carpentry Services Limited; Third Third Party: Wellington Aluminium Company Limited; Fourth Third Party: Twin Roofing Limited; Fifth Third Party: Greig Hayward trading as Greig Hayward Architecture; Sixth Third Party: M & M Plumbing Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
31 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Interlocutory Application / Application for Recall of Substituted Service (interlocutory)
Outcome
Application to recall substituted service order dismissed.
Legal Topics
Substituted Service, Recall of Order, Inherent Jurisdiction, Ex Parte Application, Finality of Judgment
Civil Procedure Service of Process Judicial Administration Substituted Service Recall of Order Inherent Jurisdiction Ex Parte Application Finality of Judgment

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lance Rodney Smith and Olinka Lorraine Smith

Plaintiffs

Surendra Singh

First Defendant

Surendra Singh and Avinesh Surendra Singh

Second Defendants

Hutt City Council

Third Defendant

Foster Construction and Carpentry Services Limited

First Third Party

Wellington Aluminium Company Limited

Third Third Party

Twin Roofing Limited

Fourth Third Party

Greig Hayward trading as Greig Hayward Architecture

Fifth Third Party

M & M Plumbing Limited

Sixth Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Interlocutory Application / Application for Recall of Substituted Service (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the substituted service order should be recalled
  2. 2 Whether r.542(3) permits recall after the order has been sealed
  3. 3 Whether the Court's inherent jurisdiction supports recall of the order

Ratio Decidendi

The sealed substituted service order was properly obtained and there was no 'very special reason' or misleading of the Court that would justify recall under r.542(3) or the Court's inherent jurisdiction; accordingly the application to recall is dismissed and the substituted service order stands.

Court Disposition

Application to recall substituted service order dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for recall of the substituted service order dismissed.
  • Costs reserved; parties may file memoranda if costs are in issue and the judge will determine costs on the material filed.