Event and Time
Event Description
The case revolves around an application for substituted service under Rule 116 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR). The court was approached to allow an alternative method of serving legal documents, as the applicant claimed that personal service was impracticable due to the respondent evading service.
Application and Claims
- The applicant sought to demonstrate that it was impracticable to serve the Second Defendant personally.
- The applicant claimed that substantial efforts had been made to serve the respondent at a specific residential address.
- The request included several proposed methods of contact, including post, email, and text messaging.
Judicial Decisions
- The application for substituted service was dismissed by the court.
- No order as to costs was made.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Applicant's Claims:
- Significant efforts had been made to serve the Second Defendant at her last known residential address. - Compelling evidence was that the Second Defendant was residing at the address and evading service.
- Defendant's Position:
- No compelling evidence that the Second Defendant was living at the stated address. - Challenges to the applicant's characterization of their efforts to serve as "significant." - Lack of evidence indicating the Second Defendant was avoiding service or residing at the address during the specified timeframe.
- Evidence Submitted:
- The applicant attempted to serve the documents four times without success. - No direct evidence from neighbors or occupants that the Second Defendant lived at the address. - The evidence regarding the registration of a vehicle was insufficient to prove occupation. - Mobile number provided was disconnected, and there had been no communication via email for five months.