Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1803

Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1803

Because the plaintiff had given the London address as his address for service in the Statement of Claim and had also acknowledged that address in related proceedings, and because the motion and supporting submissions were sent to addresses used by him, service of the defendant's Notice of Motion was effected in accordance with an acknowledgment within Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 10.6 and the motion was sufficiently brought to the plaintiff's attention.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Rulings; Civil Procedure Service Motion / Hearing of the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Filed on 8 November 2013 Seeking Dismissal of the Defendant's Notice of Motion Filed on 12 July 2013 for Alleged Non Service
Outcome
The plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed on 8 November 2013 is dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['service' 'international Service' 'service to an Acknowledged Address' 'notice of Motion']
['civil Procedure'] ['service' 'international Service' 'service to an Acknowledged Address' 'notice of Motion']

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

Procedural and Other Rulings; Civil Procedure Service Motion / Hearing of the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Filed on 8 November 2013 Seeking Dismissal of the Defendant's Notice of Motion Filed on 12 July 2013 for Alleged Non Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendant's Notice of Motion filed on 12 July 2013 had been served or sufficiently brought to the plaintiff's attention." 'Whether service was effected in accordance with an acknowledgment by the plaintiff within the meaning of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 10.6.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiff had given the London address as his address for service in the Statement of Claim and had also acknowledged that address in related proceedings, and because the motion and supporting submissions were sent to addresses used by him, service of the defendant's Notice of Motion was effected in accordance with an acknowledgment within Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 10.6 and the motion was sufficiently brought to the plaintiff's attention.

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed on 8 November 2013 is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed on 8 November 2013 is dismissed with costs."]