Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Gordon Goldberg |
| Date: |
Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:30:09 |
| Re: |
Cases of interest? |
The rule,
to which I referred (if I remember it rightly), would not have allowed a
licensed process server to serve his own petition. Nor, I confess, has it
been recently (if it ever was) generally in force. R.S.C. O. X r.1(1), as
transcribed in the English "Supreme Court Practice 1997", reads: "A writ
must be served personally on each defendant by the plaintiff or his agent."
-----Original Message----- 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
From: Lionel Smith
Date: 2 November 2000 14:25
Subject: Re: [RDG:] cases of interest?
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
