You got served! Or did you? Electronic service of legal documents in question

Serving documents electronically may be practical and convenient for businesses and individuals with the prevalent cloud-based technology. But convenience comes at a cost. The Supreme Court of Queensland has held that Dropbox is not a valid means of serving legal documents, voiding an adjudication decision worth more than $100,000.

The implications of this decision extend not only to other cloud-based technology such as Apple's iCloud, Google's Google Drive and Hightail, but to other electronic methods of service such as e-mail.

Dropbox - not a valid method of service

The facts

In Conveyor & General Engineering Pty Ltd v Basetec Services Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 30, an engineering company, Basetec Services Pty Ltd (Basetec), served part of an adjudication application by way of e-mail. Enclosed in the e-mail was a copy of another e-mail sent by Basetec to the adjudicator stating: