Willmott v Adamo [2024] NSWSC 682

Willmott v Adamo [2024] NSWSC 682

The fourth defendant was not properly served because although service was effected in accordance with New Hampshire law, the plaintiff failed to serve the mandatory r 11.7 UCPR notice, and service did not comply with the requirements of either Part 11 or Part 11A of the UCPR. Accordingly, the plaintiff is not at this stage entitled to proceed or to default judgment against the fourth defendant.

Parties
Plaintiff: Claire Willmott; First Defendant: Shona Adamo; Second Defendant: Matthew Adamo; Third Defendant: Runstar Pty Ltd t/as Peppertown Gold Coast; Fourth Defendant: Alien Flier LLC
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort Claim / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Proceed and Default Judgment; Directions Hearing
Outcome
Application stood over; no leave to proceed or default judgment granted at this time.
Legal Topics
Service Outside Australia, Default Judgment, Service of Foreign Corporation, Leave to Proceed, Australian Consumer Law
Civil Procedure Service Outside Australia Default Judgment Service of Foreign Corporation Leave to Proceed Australian Consumer Law

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claire Willmott

Plaintiff

Shona Adamo

First Defendant

Matthew Adamo

Second Defendant

Runstar Pty Ltd t/as Peppertown Gold Coast

Third Defendant

Alien Flier LLC

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort Claim / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Proceed and Default Judgment; Directions Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fourth defendant was validly served with the statement of claim outside Australia
  2. 2 Whether leave to proceed and default judgment can be granted against the fourth defendant
  3. 3 Whether failure to serve notice under r 11.7 UCPR may be dispensed with

Ratio Decidendi

The fourth defendant was not properly served because although service was effected in accordance with New Hampshire law, the plaintiff failed to serve the mandatory r 11.7 UCPR notice, and service did not comply with the requirements of either Part 11 or Part 11A of the UCPR. Accordingly, the plaintiff is not at this stage entitled to proceed or to default judgment against the fourth defendant.

Court Disposition

Application stood over; no leave to proceed or default judgment granted at this time.

Orders

  • Matter stood over for further directions before Cavanagh J on 1 August 2024.
  • Liberty to the plaintiff to relist the matter for disposal of the motion on three days' notice.