9 Feb 2023
Because the judgment creditors made reasonable efforts at personal service, the judgment debtor had actively used and invited service by the email address in question and had acknowledged receipt, personal service was dispensed with and substituted service by email was ordered with service treated as effected the day after emailing.
14 Nov 2022
Service of the payment claims to accounts@eco-smart.nz was valid because, on an objective assessment of prior dealings and use of that address for accounts matters, ECTCH's consent to receive payment claims at that address could be inferred, so there was no reasonably arguable substantial dispute under s290 and the statutory demand was not set aside.
17 Feb 2022
It is reasonably arguable that Payment Claim No.9 was not validly served because prior communications established that payment claims were to be sent to the accounts address and consent to lone service to Mr Pickard cannot be reliably inferred; alternatively, even if email service to Mr Pickard was consented to, no information system was designated so service occurs only when the email came to his attention, which made the payment schedule timely; therefore s23 could not be relied on to establish a debt and the statutory demand was set aside.
26 Mar 2021
Given the respondent's residence in the United Kingdom, the COVID-19 related restrictions affecting personal service, and evidence of email contact making email likely to bring the proceedings to her attention, the court exercised its discretion under High Court Rules r 11.5 and ordered substituted service by email and dispensed with personal service.
24 Feb 2021
The Court was satisfied BNZ had taken reasonable steps to locate and contact the defendant and that service by email to known addresses, publication of an advertisement in The Press, and sending an SMS to the defendant's cellphone number were likely to bring the documents to the defendant's attention; accordingly substituted service was ordered and the documents deemed served three working days after completion of those steps.
9 Dec 2020
Leave to bring the appeal out of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide a convincing explanation for a significant seven‑week delay, the proposed appeal impermissibly sought to challenge the merits rather than procedural unfairness under s50 Disputes Tribunal Act, and the District Court judge was entitled to conclude that email notice had been received; accordingly the application for leave was dismissed and the appeal struck out.
9 Oct 2020
The court held that interested persons identified in counsel's memorandum who agreed to accept service may be served by email notwithstanding they are not formal 'parties' for purposes of r 6.7, directed service by email to those organisations and individuals who had agreed, ordered parents/guardians to be served on behalf of specified minor beneficiaries, ordered substituted service by newspaper advertisement for an unlocatable beneficiary (Sally Manning), deferred substituted service for two adults (Thomas and Michael Preddy) pending confirmation of contact by their mother, and required ema…
28 Jun 2019
A statutory demand does not require an expanded or technical meaning of "legal proceedings" to bar email service; where the affidavit of service proves the email address was appropriately used and the statutory demand was clearly sent in a way consistent with the objectives of service (s392(1)(f)), email service is effective and the creditor was entitled to a liquidation order for non-payment.
9 Oct 2018
The application for substituted service was declined because the applicant failed to provide evidence that reasonable efforts had been made to effect personal service at the Geelong address and failed to establish that emailing Alyssa Strangwick would be likely to bring the documents to her attention; moreover, service on one defendant could not be treated as service on the other without evidential basis.
2 Dec 2014
The court entered summary judgment because service by email was effective under the defendant's prior agreement, the defendant did not oppose and the plaintiff proved the debt and associated interest and costs in accordance with the loan documentation.