Sleiman v Afeich [2005] NSWSC 992

Sleiman v Afeich [2005] NSWSC 992

Although the subpoenas were not personally served, the earlier orders requiring service by leaving copies at specified addresses were justified as substituted service or as dispensing with the personal service requirement. Given apparent fraudulent diversion of a large sum of money, the Mareva orders, and the addressees' apparent unavailability for service on a number of occasions, there was sufficient service in the circumstances for warrants to issue.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceeding Concerning Warrants for Arrest for Disobedience of Subpoenas / Application or Consideration of Warrants for Arrest After Non Attendance in Response to Subpoenas
Outcome
Warrants for arrest issued for disobedience of subpoenas.
Legal Topics
['warrant for Arrest for Disobedience of Subpoena' 'service of Subpoenas' 'substituted Service' 'dispensing With Rules of Court' 'mareva Relief']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['warrant for Arrest for Disobedience of Subpoena' 'service of Subpoenas' 'substituted Service' 'dispensing With Rules of Court' 'mareva Relief']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceeding Concerning Warrants for Arrest for Disobedience of Subpoenas / Application or Consideration of Warrants for Arrest After Non Attendance in Response to Subpoenas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether warrants for arrest should issue under s 97 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 for disobedience of subpoenas where the subpoenas were not personally served.' 'Whether service by leaving copies of subpoenas at specified addresses pursuant to earlier orders was sufficient despite r 33.5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 requiring personal service.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the subpoenas were not personally served, the earlier orders requiring service by leaving copies at specified addresses were justified as substituted service or as dispensing with the personal service requirement. Given apparent fraudulent diversion of a large sum of money, the Mareva orders, and the addressees' apparent unavailability for service on a number of occasions, there was sufficient service in the circumstances for warrants to issue.

Court Disposition

Warrants for arrest issued for disobedience of subpoenas.

Orders

  • ['Warrants for the arrest of the two defendants and Bechara Tawk issued under s 97 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 for disobedience of subpoenas.']