The fine upstanding  gentlemen to the left is a document server .   He was not entirely  certain as to when  he served the mother of a child  whose  estranged grand parents  were seeking to take custody of  a 5 year old  child  .

Mr Downey presented Two affidavits to the court, neither of them was truthful  but none the less the mother  has been deemed to have been served and on top of this the judge has decided that she  has ” evaded service ”

Coincidentally the same   outfit Translegal services NZ Limited which employed Mr Downey  also employed Tony Parker  who  did not  serve Verisure investigations  and as a result  the company was put into liquidation.

Fortunately for Verisure ,  Tony Parker,  who now cannot  be found by police , was caught out  and the liquidation was reversed   . For the articles see

Approved and acceptable standards for document service in New Zealand    and    Translegal services NZ Limited another lesson in document service  and the latest response from the minister of courts

Minister of Courts defends our inept document service system

We look forward to hearing  from any one with similar experience.

for  the consequences of this lack of service see the blog here http://justnz.wordpress.com/

2 Responses to “Document service- a major concern”

  • Hi, in relation to http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/chester-borrows-document-service.pdf If prosecution is a deterrent, Downey better watch out! Gosh, did he not know that he could be prosecuted if he didn’t actually serve the document that he swore he did? In reality he could be charged with perjury – maybe someone had better warn document non-servers that they could be prosecuted! Seriously though, it is no easy feat to bring about charges of perjury and in your situation, Tony Parker was not identifiable. How do you bring about charges to an unidentifiable person? Wouldn’t the obvious solution, be to have simple legislation in place so that unidentifiable people could not carry out non-service in the first place?

  • Chuck Bird:

    The whole issue of what needs to be served and what just needs to be mailed needs to be looked at. I will try to tell my story briefly as I can.

    I had a caveat on a property which the defendant voluntary suggested I take in place of a mortgage I had on his property. He also reduced the debt as well in return. I did not have a lawyer at the time so the caveat and Memorandum of Agreement was drawn up by him. He was a retired lawyer. Therefore my address was just with LINZ.

    Some years later the defendant refused to pay the debt so I was forced to take the matter to Court. Since lodging the caveat I had moved house and the defendant know this and my new address was on Court documents. With this knowledge he applied to LINZ for the caveat to lapse in the knowledge the notice would be sent to my old address and likely not forwarded. He was correct and I failed to get the notice.

    LINZ just sent the notice by ordinary mail and the caveat was removed without my knowledge. It would have cost LINZ $10 to send the notice by courier. This has probably cost me tens of thousands of dollars.

    The Dept of Justice sends important notices to appear in Court just by ordinary mail. Fortunately, I do not think I have missed one. If I had the Judge could have thought I ignored the notice and greatly disadvantaged me.

    It seems there is one set of rules for the peasants and another for government departments.

    I to have had the experience of dealing with Chester Borrows, Minister of Courts. His attitude is that everything is my fault particularly for attempting to represent myself.

Leave a Reply