Laurie v Carroll (1958) 98 CLR 310

Facts: D and P were theatrical entrepreneurs. D (Laurie), who lived in London/England, entered into a contractual relationship with P (Carroll), in Melbourne/Victoria re an Australian dance tour. D was in Victoria between June 11 and 13 for performances, and during the time, a commercial dispute arose over profits (when cause of action arose). On June 13 (before proceedings could be commenced), D left for Sydney. On June 14, P commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria (the writ in action was issued). D had been involved in negotiations to settle the dispute, and was aware that P might sue. D left Australia on June 20, without ever having been served with the writ. P applied on 21 June for an order allowing substituted service of the writ on D’s solicitors in Melbourne. Herring CJ made the order, but D appealed.

Issue: Was the order for substituted service valid or not? This rests on whether the Victorian Supreme Court had jurisdiction over D (D was present in Victoria when the day before proceedings were commenced).

Held: No, it was not valid. Presence within the territory of the court at a date prior to commencement of proceedings is not a sufficient basis for common law jurisdiction. Substituted service was not available as it requires the Court to have jurisdiction over D. D did not leave with the intention of evading service (it was on D’s itinerary to go to Sydney on that date).