A large number of the solicitors who have briefed me over the years have heard me preach about my one man crusade against service by post. Service sounds like a simple concept. It is. So why are there a disproportionate number of cases about service in the jurisdictions where I often practice (corporations, bankruptcy, migration)? Much expense could have been saved (and less ink spilled) had a process server been used. If you’re not convinced, look what happened to the ATO when it served a statutory demand by post on a company in Charleville (Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Starpicket Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1196 at [41] per Greenwood J):
“So, it seems clear enough that, so far as Australia Post is concerned, if a third party (such as any citizen having reason to engage with Starpicket Pty Ltd) writes a letter to the company at its registered office, having established the relevant registered address by searching the ASIC record of registered information, the letter will not be delivered to that address by Australia Post. That follows because, although 127 Alfred Street, Charleville is, as Ms Russell says, “a valid postal address”, that address is not recorded on Australia Post’s “sorting frame” for delivery of letters. In other words, for all practical delivery purposes, 127 Alfred Street, Charleville, Queensland 4470 which, put anecdotally, is just along the street from the post office at 63 Alfred Street, does not exist, notwithstanding that it has two owners and nine employees carrying on a business that turns over $3million from the site, in premises for that purpose on the site.”
Creative commons acknowledgement for the photograph.
RSS - Posts