//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2011] QDC 54
defendant. Orders made: (1) Wheldon and Associates granted leave to withdraw as lawyers on the record for the defendant; (2) Defendant to pay Wheldon and Associates' costs of their application to be assessed...
When a defendant's lawyers want to stop acting for a client who has disappeared, the court can help the other side by specifying an address where documents can be served. The court ordered that the plaintiffs could serve documents at the defendant's last known address, but also had to send copies to the lawyers who were withdrawing. This protects the plaintiffs from being unable to serve documents properly, while only imposing a small burden on the withdrawing lawyers to keep the documents in case their former client contacts them.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
Where defendant's solicitors given leave to withdraw and no new address for service nominated by defendant - order specifies address which plaintiffs may use for future service, with a copy of documents sent to withdrawing solicitors
HIS HONOUR: The Court's made an order in terms of the initialled draft giving the defendant's solicitors on record leave to withdraw. They've attended to the steps required by rule 990 and following of the UCPR, their client hasn't appeared when called today, although service on him is shown to have been effected on the assumption that his address revealed in the notice of intention to defend filed on 16th June last year is still appropriate.
Ms Hoefnagels responded to the Court's inquiry that no actual contact with the client has occurred since around September last year. The proceeding has been advancing behind his back, so to speak. In particular, Judge Griffin SC made an order for disclosure and costs against him on 1st of February 2011. His defence appears to plead a tenable case if supported by evidence. So his disappearance is perhaps odd.
Nonetheless, the solicitors ought not to be kept in the matter in the circumstances. In scenarios like the present, my opinion is that the Court ought to do something to alleviate the plight of adverse parties who find themselves suddenly deprived of the advantage of a useful address for service. That's why provision is made in the order in that regard. It's not intended to place obligations on the withdrawing solicitors other than the hardly onerous one of receiving and retaining documents of which copies are given to them in case their erstwhile client should make contact.
1. Wheldon and Associates be granted leave to withdraw as lawyers on the record for the defendant;
2. That he pay Wheldon and Associates costs of their application filed the 23rd of March 2011 to be assessed if not agreed;
3. That until some other address for service is filed and advice of it is served on the plaintiffs, they may serve documents on him at (or by posting to where appropriate) 69/76 Bayview Street, Runaway Bay, Queensland, 4216 with a copy of such documents to be posted to Wheldon and Associates.
(Those arrangements places the plantiffs in a less uncertain position than if they were left to make their own investigations for purposes of Rule 982.)
D&K Davis Pty Ltd & Anor
Dippenaar [2011] QDC 54
Orders made: (1) Wheldon and Associates granted leave to withdraw as lawyers on the record for the defendant; (2) Defendant to pay Wheldon and Associates' costs of their application to be assessed if not agreed; (3) Until some other address for service is filed and advice served on the plaintiffs, they may serve documents on the defendant at 69/76 Bayview Street, Runaway Bay, Queensland, 4216 with a copy of such documents to be posted to Wheldon and Associates.