Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Lionel Smith |
| Date: |
Thu, 2 Nov 2000 09:16:59 -0500 |
| Re: |
Cases of interest? |
Gordon wrote:
Regarding the judge's question in Durrani v.
Augier: I seem to recall that, at least in matrimonial (and perhaps in
all) causes when I was first in practice in Victoria, Australia, a party
was not allowed in his own person to effect service of process. He had
to employ his solicitor or a licensed process server to do so. Perhaps
a similar rule might have thwarted Augier's scheme? There is no mention of who served. I think, however,
that the rule must be as you describe the Victoria rule. So I am not really
sure how he got that default judgment. The judge mentioned that Augier
had been a paralegal which is how he learned about the litigation process.
Maybe he was actually a licensed process server? But that's just speculation.
Lionel
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
