Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd v Reed (No 3) [2021] FCA 225

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd v Reed (No 3) [2021] FCA 225

The respondents' interlocutory application was dismissed because serious attempts at personal service in Maryland had been made and were unsuccessful, which was sufficient to enliven r 10.49 without exhausting every possible or reasonable mode of foreign service; in any event, the respondents had proper notice, appeared unconditionally, invoked the Court's process, and did not contest jurisdiction, making the challenge to service pointless. The applicants' conditional application was dismissed because its condition was not met, although the prerequisites for r 10.48 relief would have been satisfied. The respondents were ordered to pay indemnity costs because the service challenge was a...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Admiralty and Maritime Anti Suit Proceeding Involving Service Abroad and Substituted Service / Interlocutory Applications by Respondents to Set Aside Substituted Service Orders and for a Declaration That Service Had Not Been Effected, and Conditional Interlocutory Application by Applicants for Deemed Service
Outcome
Both interlocutory applications dismissed; respondents ordered to pay applicants' costs on both interlocutory applications on an indemnity basis; timetable and further case management orders made.
Legal Topics
['service Abroad' 'substituted Service' 'deemed Service' 'overarching Purpose' 'indemnity Costs' 'solicitor Liability for Costs' 'anti Suit Injunction']
['practice and Procedure' 'admiralty and Maritime' 'costs'] ['service Abroad' 'substituted Service' 'deemed Service' 'overarching Purpose' 'indemnity Costs' 'solicitor Liability for Costs' 'anti Suit Injunction']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Admiralty and Maritime Anti Suit Proceeding Involving Service Abroad and Substituted Service / Interlocutory Applications by Respondents to Set Aside Substituted Service Orders and for a Declaration That Service Had Not Been Effected, and Conditional Interlocutory Application by Applicants for Deemed Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the order made on 18 February 2021 permitting substituted service should be set aside.' 'Whether service had not been effected on the respondents.' 'Whether r 10.49 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) requires all possible or reasonably possible avenues of service under the law of the foreign country to be exhausted before substituted service can be ordered.' "Whether, if the respondents' application succeeded, the documents should be taken to have been served under r 10.48 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)." "Whether the respondents should pay the applicants' costs on an indemnity basis." "Whether the respondents' local solicitors should be jointly and severally liable for costs under s 43(3)(f) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents' interlocutory application was dismissed because serious attempts at personal service in Maryland had been made and were unsuccessful, which was sufficient to enliven r 10.49 without exhausting every possible or reasonable mode of foreign service; in any event, the respondents had proper notice, appeared unconditionally, invoked the Court's process, and did not contest jurisdiction, making the challenge to service pointless. The applicants' conditional application was dismissed because its condition was not met, although the prerequisites for r 10.48 relief would have been satisfied. The respondents were ordered to pay indemnity costs because the service challenge was a...

Court Disposition

Both interlocutory applications dismissed; respondents ordered to pay applicants' costs on both interlocutory applications on an indemnity basis; timetable and further case management orders made.

Orders

  • ["The respondents' interlocutory application filed 9 March 2021 and the applicants' interlocutory application filed 11 March 2021 are dismissed." "The respondents are to pay the applicants' costs of both interlocutory applications on an indemnity basis." 'The respondents are to file and serve their defence on or...