Fair Work Ombudsman v DTF World Square Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1178

Fair Work Ombudsman v DTF World Square Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1178

The Court granted leave to serve Mr Harjanto in Singapore because he was likely to be in Singapore, service by the proposed method was supported as permissible under Singapore law, the Court had jurisdiction under s 39B(1A)(c) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and s 562 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the proceeding fell within r 10.42, and the Ombudsman had shown a prima facie case for at least some relief. The Court also made deemed service orders for Ms Handoko and Ms Parmenas because numerous attempts at personal service had failed, the evidence supported an inference that they were evading service, personal service was not practicable, and the originating documents had been brought to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications in a Fair Work Proceeding / Applications for Leave to Serve Originating Documents Outside Australia on the Third Respondent and for Deemed Service on the Fourth and Fifth Respondents
Outcome
Leave to serve the third respondent in Singapore granted; originating application and statement of claim deemed served on the fourth and fifth respondents; time for service extended; fourth and fifth respondents ordered to file and serve notices of address for service and defences.
Legal Topics
['service of Originating Process Outside Australia' 'deemed Service' 'fair Work Act Contraventions' 'accessory Liability' 'prima Facie Case for Service Outside Australia']
['practice and Procedure' 'employment and Industrial Relations'] ['service of Originating Process Outside Australia' 'deemed Service' 'fair Work Act Contraventions' 'accessory Liability' 'prima Facie Case for Service Outside Australia']

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 Applications in a Fair Work Proceeding / Applications for Leave to Serve Originating Documents Outside Australia on the Third Respondent and for Deemed Service on the Fourth and Fifth Respondents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted under r 10.43(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to serve the third respondent in Singapore.' 'Whether the Court had jurisdiction in the proceeding and the proceeding was of a kind mentioned in r 10.42.' 'Whether the applicant had a prima facie case for all or any of the relief claimed.' 'Whether personal service on the fourth and fifth respondents was not practicable.' 'Whether the originating documents had been brought to the attention of the fourth and fifth respondents.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court granted leave to serve Mr Harjanto in Singapore because he was likely to be in Singapore, service by the proposed method was supported as permissible under Singapore law, the Court had jurisdiction under s 39B(1A)(c) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and s 562 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the proceeding fell within r 10.42, and the Ombudsman had shown a prima facie case for at least some relief. The Court also made deemed service orders for Ms Handoko and Ms Parmenas because numerous attempts at personal service had failed, the evidence supported an inference that they were evading service, personal service was not practicable, and the originating documents had been brought to...

Court Disposition

Leave to serve the third respondent in Singapore granted; originating application and statement of claim deemed served on the fourth and fifth respondents; time for service extended; fourth and fifth respondents ordered to file and serve notices of address for service and defences.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to r 10.43(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), leave be granted to the applicant to serve the originating application and the statement of claim filed in these proceedings on 17 June 2020 on the third respondent in Singapore in accordance with the law of Singapore.' 'Pursuant to r 10.23 of the...