Proof - poof!
One element I see as missing in this discussion is the
reason for AfS: viz. proof of delivery to the recipient.
Although the TT is a kangaroo court, there is a general
principle in 'process' that the person being 'accused' has
been informed that they are so accused and that there is
proof (of delivery of the accusative documents) so that the
court concerned can be fairly satisfied that the
person knows they are so accused, is aware of the fixture
details (where & when) at which the matter will be considered
and just what they're being asked to defend.
There are oddball aspects to this proof of service axiom.
E.g. a trespass notice is deemed to have been served if it is
dropped at the feet of the person named in the notice.
The RTA equivalent (?) is putting it in a letterbox. For ships,
it used to be sufficient for the notice to be affixed to the mast!
My guess is that any reflection on address for service would
turn about whether or not the delivery mechanism used
could be reasonably deemed to have effected notice to
the person accused, so that said person can be fairly
adjudged <whatever> in absentia, if they don't appear.
One element I see as missing in this discussion is the
reason for AfS: viz. proof of delivery to the recipient.
Although the TT is a kangaroo court, there is a general
principle in 'process' that the person being 'accused' has
been informed that they are so accused and that there is
proof (of delivery of the accusative documents) so that the
court concerned can be fairly satisfied that the
person knows they are so accused, is aware of the fixture
details (where & when) at which the matter will be considered
and just what they're being asked to defend.
There are oddball aspects to this proof of service axiom.
E.g. a trespass notice is deemed to have been served if it is
dropped at the feet of the person named in the notice.
The RTA equivalent (?) is putting it in a letterbox. For ships,
it used to be sufficient for the notice to be affixed to the mast!
My guess is that any reflection on address for service would
turn about whether or not the delivery mechanism used
could be reasonably deemed to have effected notice to
the person accused, so that said person can be fairly
adjudged <whatever> in absentia, if they don't appear.
Comment