Jomaa v Denney [2018] NSWSC 76

Jomaa v Denney [2018] NSWSC 76

Because the plaintiff had taken considerable unsuccessful steps to serve the defendant or have Channel 10 legal counsel accept service on his behalf, and because it was not reasonably practicable to serve the defendant in the manner required by law, substituted service under rule 10.14 was appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Application for Substituted Service
Outcome
Orders made for substituted service.
Legal Topics
['substituted Service' 'service of Statement of Claim' 'television Broadcast' 'proceedings Against Journalist']

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

Defamation Proceedings / Application for Substituted Service

  1. 1 ['Whether it was reasonably practicable for the plaintiff to serve the defendant in the manner required by law.' 'Whether an order for substituted service under rule 10.14 was appropriate.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiff had taken considerable unsuccessful steps to serve the defendant or have Channel 10 legal counsel accept service on his behalf, and because it was not reasonably practicable to serve the defendant in the manner required by law, substituted service under rule 10.14 was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Orders made for substituted service.

Orders

  • ['Orders 1, 2 and 3 in the notice of motion filed 4 January 2018 were made.' 'The proceedings were stood over before McCallum J on 16 March 2018 for first listing.' 'The plaintiff was directed to inform the defendant of the adjourned date at the time the pleading is served.']