ASIC v Sweeney No.2 [2001] NSWSC 477

ASIC v Sweeney No.2 [2001] NSWSC 477

The court had jurisdiction to order substituted service upon the defendant resident outside Australia, because the proceedings (seeking injunctions and declarations for contraventions of the Corporations Law) fell within categories permitting service outside Australia under Part 10 rule 1A, and evidence established it was impracticable to effect personal service. The omission to serve Form 13A notice was an irregularity not nullifying service.

Parties
Plaintiff: Australian Securities & Investments Commission; Defendant: Charles Augustine Sweeney
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil / Determination of Preliminary Question Regarding Court's Jurisdiction to Order Substituted Service
Outcome
Separate question determined by answering that the Court had jurisdiction to make orders for substituted service
Legal Topics
Substituted Service, Service Outside Jurisdiction, Insider Trading, Declaratory Relief, Statutory Injunctions
Practice and Procedure Corporations Law Substituted Service Service Outside Jurisdiction Insider Trading Declaratory Relief Statutory Injunctions

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 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Securities & Investments Commission

Plaintiff

Charles Augustine Sweeney

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Determination of Preliminary Question Regarding Court's Jurisdiction to Order Substituted Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction to order substituted service where the defendant was resident outside Australia when proceedings commenced
  2. 2 Whether proceedings for declaratory relief for contravention of provisions of the Corporations Law are 'founded on a cause of action' within the meaning of rules governing service outside Australia
  3. 3 Whether failure to serve Form 13A notice invalidated service

Ratio Decidendi

The court had jurisdiction to order substituted service upon the defendant resident outside Australia, because the proceedings (seeking injunctions and declarations for contraventions of the Corporations Law) fell within categories permitting service outside Australia under Part 10 rule 1A, and evidence established it was impracticable to effect personal service. The omission to serve Form 13A notice was an irregularity not nullifying service.

Court Disposition

Separate question determined by answering that the Court had jurisdiction to make orders for substituted service