Walker v Body Logic Resources Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 375

Walker v Body Logic Resources Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 375

Substituted service was appropriate because the applicant had not complied with the security for costs order, had taken no step of consequence, his former solicitors no longer acted and could not obtain instructions, and the proposed address in Las Vegas had been used in related Supreme Court of South Australia proceedings and by his former solicitors. Indemnity costs were appropriate because the respondents had been unjustifiably put to expense in dealing with the proceedings and the notice of motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion in Federal Court Proceedings / Ex Parte Hearing of Part 1 of the Respondents' Notice of Motion for Substituted Service and Indemnity Costs
Outcome
Part 1 of the respondents' notice of motion was granted; substituted service and indemnity costs were ordered; the notice of motion was adjourned for further hearing.
Legal Topics
['substituted Service' 'ex Parte Orders' 'indemnity Costs' 'security for Costs' 'stay of Proceedings']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['substituted Service' 'ex Parte Orders' 'indemnity Costs' 'security for Costs' 'stay of Proceedings']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion in Federal Court Proceedings / Ex Parte Hearing of Part 1 of the Respondents' Notice of Motion for Substituted Service and Indemnity Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Part 1 of the respondents' notice of motion should be heard ex parte and made specially returnable." 'Whether substituted service on the applicant at 4916 Whisper Lake, Las Vegas NV 89131 was appropriate.' "Whether the applicant should pay the respondents' costs of Part 1 of the notice of motion on an indemnity basis."]

Ratio Decidendi

Substituted service was appropriate because the applicant had not complied with the security for costs order, had taken no step of consequence, his former solicitors no longer acted and could not obtain instructions, and the proposed address in Las Vegas had been used in related Supreme Court of South Australia proceedings and by his former solicitors. Indemnity costs were appropriate because the respondents had been unjustifiably put to expense in dealing with the proceedings and the notice of motion.

Court Disposition

Part 1 of the respondents' notice of motion was granted; substituted service and indemnity costs were ordered; the notice of motion was adjourned for further hearing.

Orders

  • ["Part 1 of the notice of motion filed on 27 March 2009 be heard ex parte and be made specially returnable for hearing, with the respondents'/cross applicants' solicitors to attend via video link from the Adelaide Registry." 'Instead of service as required by the Federal Court Rules, documents sent by prepaid...