[2008] 10 CLJ 42
Since there was no restriction as to how service was to be effected, any method of service might be employed. Therefore, it might be served by ordinary mail. Ordinary mail was a common and generally reliable system for delivery of letters to any address. It was reasonable to expect that in the ordinary course of mail the recipient would have received the mail. It was therefore, not enough to assert that the notice was not received to displace the expectation that the defendant would have received the notice by ordinary post in the ordinary course. To do so, there must be some evidence that there had been occurrences where mail addressed to that address had not been received. No such evidence was produced. The court, therefore, accepted that the notices were delivered to the defendant.Â