Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Sweeney [2000] NSWSC 1249

Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Sweeney [2000] NSWSC 1249

The Supreme Court Rules as reformed permit substituted service for writs to be served outside Australia, provided the requirements of local impracticability and application of the appropriate procedure are met, but this does not apply identically to all processes; the answer to the preliminary question is 'sometimes', contingent on circumstances and compliance with rule requirements.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil / Preliminary Question in Motion to Set Aside Subpoena and Determination on Substituted Service
Outcome
Preliminary question answered 'sometimes'. Costs to be costs in the cause. Matter adjourned.
Legal Topics
['substituted Service' 'service Out of Jurisdiction' 'jurisdiction Over Absent Defendants' 'declaratory Relief']
['private International Law' 'procedure' 'corporations Law'] ['substituted Service' 'service Out of Jurisdiction' 'jurisdiction Over Absent Defendants' 'declaratory Relief']

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

Civil / Preliminary Question in Motion to Set Aside Subpoena and Determination on Substituted Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Supreme Court Rules allow substituted service within the jurisdiction where the defendant is not present in Australia at commencement or thereafter' 'Whether the Court has jurisdiction to make declarations or grant orders where the defendant is absent from the jurisdiction']

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court Rules as reformed permit substituted service for writs to be served outside Australia, provided the requirements of local impracticability and application of the appropriate procedure are met, but this does not apply identically to all processes; the answer to the preliminary question is 'sometimes', contingent on circumstances and compliance with rule requirements.

Court Disposition

Preliminary question answered 'sometimes'. Costs to be costs in the cause. Matter adjourned.

Orders

  • ["Preliminary question answered: 'sometimes'" 'Costs to be costs in the cause' 'Matter adjourned to 10am on Thursday 14 December 2000']