Facts: Robinson (D) had caused injury to Perrett (P) in a motor accident in NT. NT did not allow a claim for damages for future economic loss. P wanted to sue in Qld, where he could get full damages. P drove Robinson to Qld where he served process on him (Robinson didn’t complain as FAI Insurances were ultimately liable as insurers). FAI Insurances objected to Qld jurisdiction on the basis of fraud.
Issue 1: Whether the validity of service depended on the purpose for which it was effectuated?
Held: Generally, the purpose of D’s presence in jurisdiction when served is immaterial. However, where D is induced by fraud to come within the jurisdiction for the concealed purpose of being served, service will be set aside if it can be ascribed as being of an abuse of process (but it’s a very high standard).
Issue 2: Whether the Qld court found fraud?
Held: There was no fraud here (exception of fraud did not apply), Robinson came willingly and knowingly entered Qld to be served. Also Robinson is nominal D, not real D (FAI insurer).
Issue 3: whether service was valid?
Held: Yes, it was valid.