Roderick, David James v Telstra Corp Ltd & Anor [1997] FCA 1349

Roderick, David James v Telstra Corp Ltd & Anor [1997] FCA 1349

The Promotions Appeal Board was not a statutory entity and had no separate legal existence, so it could not be joined as a respondent. Substituted service on Mr Newman and Mr Hill was refused because the Court was not satisfied that correspondence sent care of Telstra's Promotions Appeal Board would come to their attention and no special circumstances were shown. Telstra's acceptance of responsibility for the relevant board entities and individuals provided an additional discretionary reason to decline the applications.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 November 1997
Procedural Posture
Application for Review Accompanied by Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Oral Applications for Joinder and Substituted Service Before Hearing of Notice of Motion Seeking Extension of Time
Outcome
Application to join the Promotions Appeal Board declined; application for substituted service on Mr Newman and Mr Hill refused.
Legal Topics
['joinder of Parties' 'substituted Service' 'separate Legal Existence of Statutory Bodies' 'extension of Time']
['administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['joinder of Parties' 'substituted Service' 'separate Legal Existence of Statutory Bodies' 'extension of Time']

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

Application for Review Accompanied by Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Oral Applications for Joinder and Substituted Service Before Hearing of Notice of Motion Seeking Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Promotions Appeal Board should be joined as an additional respondent.' 'Whether substituted service should be ordered for Mr Newman and Mr Hill.' "Whether it was necessary to pursue service on the individual second respondents given Telstra's acceptance of responsibility for relevant entities."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Promotions Appeal Board was not a statutory entity and had no separate legal existence, so it could not be joined as a respondent. Substituted service on Mr Newman and Mr Hill was refused because the Court was not satisfied that correspondence sent care of Telstra's Promotions Appeal Board would come to their attention and no special circumstances were shown. Telstra's acceptance of responsibility for the relevant board entities and individuals provided an additional discretionary reason to decline the applications.

Court Disposition

Application to join the Promotions Appeal Board declined; application for substituted service on Mr Newman and Mr Hill refused.

Orders

  • ['The application to join the Promotions Appeal Board as an additional respondent is declined.' 'The application for substituted service upon Mr Newman and Mr Hill is refused.' 'Subject to compliance with directions given on 3 November 1997, the notice of motion of 9 October 1997 will be heard and determined on 8...