Speedo Holdings B.V. v Evans [2011] FCA 1089

Speedo Holdings B.V. v Evans [2011] FCA 1089

Because attempts to secure a residential address for the Respondent were unsuccessful, personal service was not practicable within Rules 10.23 and 10.24. The Respondent had identified the email address as valid and confirmed receipt of the Originating Application and Statement of Claim sent to that address, establishing that the documents had been brought to his attention. The Court therefore ordered deemed service and substituted service by email.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Deemed Service and Substituted Service / Orders Made on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Interlocutory application granted; orders made substantially as sought.
Legal Topics
['deemed Service' 'substituted Service' 'service by Email' 'personal Service' 'domain Names Containing Trade Marks']
['practice and Procedure' 'trade Marks'] ['deemed Service' 'substituted Service' 'service by Email' 'personal Service' 'domain Names Containing Trade Marks']

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

Interlocutory Application for Deemed Service and Substituted Service / Orders Made on Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was not practicable to serve the Originating Application and Statement of Claim on the Respondent personally.' 'Whether the Originating Application and Statement of Claim had been brought to the attention of the Respondent so that they could be taken to have been served under Rule 10.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.' 'Whether substituted service by email should be ordered for further documents under Rule 10.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because attempts to secure a residential address for the Respondent were unsuccessful, personal service was not practicable within Rules 10.23 and 10.24. The Respondent had identified the email address as valid and confirmed receipt of the Originating Application and Statement of Claim sent to that address, establishing that the documents had been brought to his attention. The Court therefore ordered deemed service and substituted service by email.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application granted; orders made substantially as sought.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to Rule 10.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, the Originating Application and Statement of Claim are taken to have been served on the Respondent by the Applicants sending copies to daveevans@swimmerboyz.com on 29 August 2011.' 'Pursuant to Rule 10.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, until the Respondent...