Hamilton v Meta Platforms, Inc (Service out of Jurisdiction) [2022] FCA 681

Hamilton v Meta Platforms, Inc (Service out of Jurisdiction) [2022] FCA 681

The applicant satisfied the affidavit, jurisdiction, r 10.42 and prima facie case requirements for service out in respect of the Part IV CCA Claims, and the nature of those claims justified exercising the Court's residual discretion to require the foreign respondents to litigate in Australia. Substituted service was not ordered because the applicant had not attempted Hague Convention service and provided no current evidence showing that service in accordance with the Hague Convention in the United States was not practicable, particularly given considerations of international comity.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceedings; Ex Parte Interlocutory Application for Leave to Serve Respondents Outside Australia and for Substituted Service / Leave to Serve Out of Jurisdiction Granted; Application for Substituted Service Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to serve the Court Documents on the respondents in the United States of America was granted; substituted service was refused.
Legal Topics
['service Out of Jurisdiction' 'substituted Service' 'representative Proceedings' 'part IV Competition and Consumer Act Claims' 'hague Convention Service']
['practice and Procedure' 'competition and Consumer Law'] ['service Out of Jurisdiction' 'substituted Service' 'representative Proceedings' 'part IV Competition and Consumer Act Claims' 'hague Convention Service']

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

Representative Proceedings; Ex Parte Interlocutory Application for Leave to Serve Respondents Outside Australia and for Substituted Service / Leave to Serve Out of Jurisdiction Granted; Application for Substituted Service Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant satisfied rr 10.43(3) and 10.43(4) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) for leave to serve the respondents in the United States of America.' 'Whether the proceedings were of a kind mentioned in r 10.42 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' 'Whether the applicant established a prima facie case for all or any of the relief claimed in respect of the Part IV CCA Claims.' 'Whether the Court should exercise its residual discretion to grant leave to serve out of Australia.' 'Whether substituted service by email should be ordered under r 10.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant satisfied the affidavit, jurisdiction, r 10.42 and prima facie case requirements for service out in respect of the Part IV CCA Claims, and the nature of those claims justified exercising the Court's residual discretion to require the foreign respondents to litigate in Australia. Substituted service was not ordered because the applicant had not attempted Hague Convention service and provided no current evidence showing that service in accordance with the Hague Convention in the United States was not practicable, particularly given considerations of international comity.

Court Disposition

Leave to serve the Court Documents on the respondents in the United States of America was granted; substituted service was refused.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to rr 10.42, 10.43(2) and 10.44(1) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the applicant be granted leave to serve the Court Documents on the respondents in the United States of America in accordance with article 10(a) of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil...