Duncan v Shrestha, in the matter of Shrestha (a bankrupt) [2022] FCA 1090

Duncan v Shrestha, in the matter of Shrestha (a bankrupt) [2022] FCA 1090

The Court ordered substituted service by email because personal service was not practicable: the respondent was presently in India, had left his former Victorian residence, had denied connection with another Victorian property, and had refused to provide a current residential or service address. Service by email was likely to bring the documents to his attention because the trustees and respondent had been communicating by email and the respondent had replied using the proposed email address.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Recognition in Australia of a Singaporean Bankruptcy Proceeding and Interim Application for Directions as to Service / Interim Application for Substituted Service
Outcome
Orders for service by email made.
Legal Topics
['recognition of Foreign Insolvency Proceeding' 'substituted Service' 'service by Email' 'personal Service Not Practicable']
['bankruptcy and Insolvency' 'cross Border Insolvency' 'civil Procedure'] ['recognition of Foreign Insolvency Proceeding' 'substituted Service' 'service by Email' 'personal Service Not Practicable']

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

Application for Recognition in Australia of a Singaporean Bankruptcy Proceeding and Interim Application for Directions as to Service / Interim Application for Substituted Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should make orders that service of the application and related documents be effected by email to the respondent.' 'Whether personal service on the respondent was not practicable.' "Whether service by email was likely to bring the documents to the respondent's attention."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court ordered substituted service by email because personal service was not practicable: the respondent was presently in India, had left his former Victorian residence, had denied connection with another Victorian property, and had refused to provide a current residential or service address. Service by email was likely to bring the documents to his attention because the trustees and respondent had been communicating by email and the respondent had replied using the proposed email address.

Court Disposition

Orders for service by email made.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to rule 10.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) and for the purposes of r 14.03(3) of the Federal Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2016, the applicants shall be taken to have effected service on the respondent of the application filed on or about 28 July 2022, the interim application filed on or about 28 July...