University Law Assignment: Application for Substituted Service Order

This law assignment focuses on an application for substituted service within the context of civil procedure. The document begins with a letter to the registrar, outlining the inability to serve a statement of claim personally and the need for a substituted service order. It references Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and the case of Foxe v Brown. An affidavit is then presented, supporting the application by detailing the attempts made to serve the defendant and the reasons for seeking substituted service. The assignment continues with an outline of arguments for the court, further elaborating on relevant rules and case laws, including Embry v Smart and Ricegrowers Co-operative Ltd & Anor v ABC Container Line, to justify the request for substituted service. The student emphasizes the efforts made to serve the documents and the futility of further attempts, providing evidence to support the application. The assignment demonstrates a clear understanding of the legal principles governing substituted service and its application in this specific scenario.

Running Head: LAW
Law
Name of Student
Name of University
Author Note

LAW
Part 1 A
To
The Registrar
Dear Madam/Sir
The statement of claim in relation to this case has been submitted on 1st March 2018. I
did not have the capacity of serving the statement by post or personally. This is the reason
why I seek to make an application for a substituted service order. I would be grateful if you
make order through which the statement of claim can be served via sending it to Dr Wallace
at any other place. This is because Under rule 116 of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules it is
stated that in case it is not practicable to serve a document in a manner provided by the
chapter the court can order substitution of the way in which the document is to be served by
another way. In the case of Foxe v Brown (1984) 58 ALR 542 it had been stated by the court
that the plaintiff has to be able to provide before the court that at the time when he or she has
made the application for substituted services before the court that reasonable effort has been
utilized by the plaintiff to serve the document to the plaintiff in personal capacity but such
attempts have failed. We have made all possible attempts in this situation to serve the
documents to him in his personal capacity which have failed.
Along with this letter I have also endorsed an affidavit which would provide support to my
application for substituted services order.
Yours faithfully

LAW
Part 1 B
AFFIDAVIT
COURT DETAILS
COURT – LOCAL COURT
DIVISION -SMALL CLAIMS
CASE NUMBER – XXXXXX
Title of Proceedings
Plaintiff- Croc Bait 27
Defendant – Dr Wallace
Filed for - Croc Bait 27 plaintiff
Contact and Telephone – XXXXXXX

LAW
Name - Croc Bait 27
Address – xxxx
Occupation – Company
Date – 24-10-2018
I affirm that
1. I am the above mentioned plaintiff
2. The statement of claim in relation to the matter has been submitted in 1st March 2018
3. The statement of claim had been posted to the defendant in form of a sealed copy
4. The address which has been mentioned above by me is true
5. The statement of claim had not been received by the defendant
6. On several attempts we have failed to successfully serve the statement of claim to the
defendant personal.
7. We have come to seek the order of substituted services from the court only because
all the attempts which have been made by use to personally sever the statement of
claim to the defendant as required under the civil procedure code have failed
8. We confirm that all details provided by use are true to the best of our knowledge
9. All documents which would be required to prove our failed attempts of delivery have
been accompanied with this affidavit.
SWORN at --------
Signature of Deponent -------
Witness Name -----
Witness Address -----
Witness Capacity --------
I saw the deponents face
I have confirmed the identity if the deponent through the use of identification documents.

LAW
Part 1 C
Outline of arguments for the court with respect to rules and case laws regarding orders for
substituted services
Under rule 116 of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules it is stated that in case it is not
practicable to serve a document in a manner provided by the chapter the court can order
substitution of the way in which the document is to be served by another way.
In the case of Foxe v Brown (1984) 58 ALR 5421 it had been stated by the court that
the plaintiff has to be able to provide before the court that at the time when he or she has
made the application for substituted services before the court that reasonable effort has been
utilized by the plaintiff to serve the document to the plaintiff in personal capacity but such
attempts have failed. Substituted services involves the situation here the court may allow us
to indirectly sever the document to another related person of the defendant which has been
approved by the court or through the public publication of the document or by sending it
through mail or dropping it to the workplace. We would like to inform the court that on
several attempts we have failed to successfully serve the statement of claim to the defendant
personal. This is the sole reason for which we are opting for substituted services. In the light
of the rules provided through the case of Foxe v Brown we should be provided with an
opportunity to avail the services in light of the facts.
In order to seek help under this procedure we are aware about the fact that we need to
provide evidence before the court that we are not able to reach the defendant and all efforts
which have been made by us to contact the defendant have failed. We are ready to provide
the court with such evidence in form of an affidavit. This rule is provided under the case of
Embry v Smart [2014] QCA 752. Therefore as we are provide the court with adequate
evidence which showcases that we are not able to reach the defendant and all efforts which
have been made by us to contact the defendant have failed there should not be any doubt in
relation to the fact that we should be allowed to seek help via substituted services in order to
serve documents to the defendant.
We would also like to bring to the notice of the court the rules provided in the case of
Ricegrowers Co-operative Ltd & Anor v ABC Container Line (1996) 138 ALR 4803. In this
1 Foxe v Brown (1984) 58 ALR 542
2 Embry v Smart [2014] QCA 75
3 Ricegrowers Co-operative Ltd & Anor v ABC Container Line (1996) 138 ALR 480

LAW
case it had been ruled by the judges that evidence must be “so obviously futile as not to
warrant an attempt at service". In the light of these rules we would like to bring to the
attention of the court that we have not once but on several occasions made an attempt to serve
document to the defendant personally. This may clear all doubts that we have not made an
attempt.

LAW
Bibliography
Part 1 A
To
The Registrar
Dear Madam/Sir
The statement of claim in relation to this case has been submitted on 1st March 2018. I
did not have the capacity of serving the statement by post or personally. This is the reason
why I seek to make an application for a substituted service order. I would be grateful if you
make order through which the statement of claim can be served via sending it to Dr Wallace
at any other place. This is because Under rule 116 of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules it is
stated that in case it is not practicable to serve a document in a manner provided by the
chapter the court can order substitution of the way in which the document is to be served by
another way. In the case of Foxe v Brown (1984) 58 ALR 542 it had been stated by the court
that the plaintiff has to be able to provide before the court that at the time when he or she has
made the application for substituted services before the court that reasonable effort has been
utilized by the plaintiff to serve the document to the plaintiff in personal capacity but such
attempts have failed. We have made all possible attempts in this situation to serve the
documents to him in his personal capacity which have failed.
Along with this letter I have also endorsed an affidavit which would provide support to my
application for substituted services order.
Yours faithfully

LAW
Part 1 B
AFFIDAVIT
COURT DETAILS
COURT – LOCAL COURT
DIVISION -SMALL CLAIMS
CASE NUMBER – XXXXXX
Title of Proceedings
Plaintiff- Croc Bait 27
Defendant – Dr Wallace
Filed for - Croc Bait 27 plaintiff
Contact and Telephone – XXXXXXX

LAW
Name - Croc Bait 27
Address – xxxx
Occupation – Company
Date – 24-10-2018
I affirm that
1. I am the above mentioned plaintiff
2. The statement of claim in relation to the matter has been submitted in 1st March 2018
3. The statement of claim had been posted to the defendant in form of a sealed copy
4. The address which has been mentioned above by me is true
5. The statement of claim had not been received by the defendant
6. On several attempts we have failed to successfully serve the statement of claim to the
defendant personal.
7. We have come to seek the order of substituted services from the court only because
all the attempts which have been made by use to personally sever the statement of
claim to the defendant as required under the civil procedure code have failed
8. We confirm that all details provided by use are true to the best of our knowledge
9. All documents which would be required to prove our failed attempts of delivery have
been accompanied with this affidavit.
SWORN at --------
Signature of Deponent -------
Witness Name -----
Witness Address -----
Witness Capacity --------
I saw the deponents face
I have confirmed the identity if the deponent through the use of identification documents.

LAW
Part 1 C
Outline of arguments for the court with respect to rules and case laws regarding orders for
substituted services
Under rule 116 of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules it is stated that in case it is not
practicable to serve a document in a manner provided by the chapter the court can order
substitution of the way in which the document is to be served by another way.
In the case of Foxe v Brown (1984) 58 ALR 5424 it had been stated by the court that
the plaintiff has to be able to provide before the court that at the time when he or she has
made the application for substituted services before the court that reasonable effort has been
utilized by the plaintiff to serve the document to the plaintiff in personal capacity but such
attempts have failed. Substituted services involves the situation here the court may allow us
to indirectly sever the document to another related person of the defendant which has been
approved by the court or through the public publication of the document or by sending it
through mail or dropping it to the workplace. We would like to inform the court that on
several attempts we have failed to successfully serve the statement of claim to the defendant
personal. This is the sole reason for which we are opting for substituted services. In the light
of the rules provided through the case of Foxe v Brown we should be provided with an
opportunity to avail the services in light of the facts.
In order to seek help under this procedure we are aware about the fact that we need to
provide evidence before the court that we are not able to reach the defendant and all efforts
which have been made by us to contact the defendant have failed. We are ready to provide
the court with such evidence in form of an affidavit. This rule is provided under the case of
Embry v Smart [2014] QCA 755. Therefore as we are provide the court with adequate
evidence which showcases that we are not able to reach the defendant and all efforts which
have been made by us to contact the defendant have failed there should not be any doubt in
relation to the fact that we should be allowed to seek help via substituted services in order to
serve documents to the defendant.
We would also like to bring to the notice of the court the rules provided in the case of
Ricegrowers Co-operative Ltd & Anor v ABC Container Line (1996) 138 ALR 4806. In this
4 Foxe v Brown (1984) 58 ALR 542
5 Embry v Smart [2014] QCA 75
6 Ricegrowers Co-operative Ltd & Anor v ABC Container Line (1996) 138 ALR 480

LAW
case it had been ruled by the judges that evidence must be “so obviously futile as not to
warrant an attempt at service". In the light of these rules we would like to bring to the
attention of the court that we have not once but on several occasions made an attempt to serve
document to the defendant personally. This may clear all doubts that we have not made an
attempt.

LAW
Bibliography
Embry v Smart [2014] QCA 75
Foxe v Brown (1984) 58 ALR 542
Ricegrowers Co-operative Ltd & Anor v ABC Container Line (1996) 138 ALR 480
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules