Recent Developments and FAQs

Personal service pursuant to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)
Almost every Court document filed in a civil litigious matter requires personal service on any individual who is a party to the litigation. The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) provide the rules for personal service of civil Court documents in Queensland.

 

Rule 105 of the UCPR provides that all originating processes must be personally served on the defendant or respondent. This means claims and statements of claims and applications must be personally served on the defendant or respondent.

 

Rule 106 of the UCPR provides that personal service is performed by giving the document, or a copy of the document, to the person intended to be served. If the person does not accept the document, the document may be left at their feet.

 

It is not necessary to serve the original document. Serving a copy of the document will satisfy the requirements under the UCPR.

Service of companies pursuant to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Rule 107 of the UCPR provides that service of documents on companies is to be done so in accordance with the requirements in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

 

Section 109X of the Corporations Act provides that documents can be served on companies by personally serving the documents on a director of the company who resides in Australia.

Service by social media- The future of service
It is not uncommon for litigants to encounter difficulty serving Court proceedings. Quite often a party will avoid service or cannot be located. In these circumstances, litigants may give consideration to alternate forms of substituted service. One such alternative is to serve a party via their social media accounts including by Instagram or Facebook.

 

Recently in the NSW Supreme Court case of Wakim V Criniti [2016] NSWSC 1723, the Plaintiff sought an order that personal service of the Statement of Claim be effected on the Defendant through social networking websites Facebook and Instagram. The court ultimately held that the Statement of Claim could not be practicably served on the Defendant in person and service via social media was likely to bring the Statement of Claim to the notice of the Defendant. Similarly, in the ACT Supreme Court in MKM Capital Pty Ltd V Corbo & Poyser (Unreported, 12 December 2008) it was held that a Judgement could be served via Facebook as this method of service would bring the Judgement to the Defendant’s attention.

 

Such cases demonstrate how social media can be a cost effective method for the service of a court document and how it can be potentially considered in cases or circumstances where service is difficult.