AMD Resources Limited v AU Gold Pty Ltd, in the matter of AMD Resources Limited [2022] FCA 1212

AMD Resources Limited v AU Gold Pty Ltd, in the matter of AMD Resources Limited [2022] FCA 1212

An order for substituted service was appropriate as personal service was not practicable despite reasonable efforts, and serving by email was reasonably likely to bring the matter to the fourth respondent's attention; costs were ordered against the fourth respondent due to her failure to maintain accurate address records which necessitated the application.

Parties
Applicant: AMD Resources Limited (A.C.N. 602 696 873); First Respondent: AU Gold Pty Ltd (A.C.N. 631 939 878); Second Respondent: National Gold Pty Ltd (A.C.N. 631 939 985); Third Respondent: Mr Andrew Bruce Kavanagh; Fourth Respondent: Pnina Feldman; Fifth Respondent: Centurion Lawyers Pty Ltd (A.C.N. 165 848 591)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Substituted Service and Costs
Outcome
Application granted; substituted service ordered; fourth respondent to pay applicant's costs.
Legal Topics
Substituted Service, Costs
Practice and Procedure Substituted Service Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AMD Resources Limited (A.C.N. 602 696 873)

Applicant

AU Gold Pty Ltd (A.C.N. 631 939 878)

First Respondent

National Gold Pty Ltd (A.C.N. 631 939 985)

Second Respondent

Mr Andrew Bruce Kavanagh

Third Respondent

Pnina Feldman

Fourth Respondent

Centurion Lawyers Pty Ltd (A.C.N. 165 848 591)

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Substituted Service and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether substituted service should be ordered on the fourth respondent under r 10.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the fourth respondent should pay costs of and incidental to the application

Ratio Decidendi

An order for substituted service was appropriate as personal service was not practicable despite reasonable efforts, and serving by email was reasonably likely to bring the matter to the fourth respondent's attention; costs were ordered against the fourth respondent due to her failure to maintain accurate address records which necessitated the application.

Court Disposition

Application granted; substituted service ordered; fourth respondent to pay applicant's costs.

Orders

  • Pursuant to r 10.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), service on the fourth respondent to be effected by email to pninafeldman@gmail.com.
  • Fourth respondent to pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the application for substituted service.