Hillier v Martin (No 5) [2021] FCA 949

Hillier v Martin (No 5) [2021] FCA 949

In all the circumstances, the need for a convenient, timely and cost-effective means of exchanging documents outweighed the objections raised. Service on the company pending the filing of an address for service can be validly effected by email to both directors, and requiring ongoing physical or postal service would be productive of unnecessary cost and delay. The orders were made pursuant to the Rules and the overriding purpose of civil proceedings.

Parties
Applicant: James Hillier; First Respondent: Victoria Martin; Second Respondent: Nordburger Operations Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Erik Vari Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure / Interlocutory Order/reasons – Joinder; Service; Notice of Address for Service
Outcome
Interlocutory orders made
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Service of Documents, Notice of Address for Service
Civil Procedure Corporations Law Joinder of Parties Service of Documents Notice of Address for Service

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Hillier

Applicant

Victoria Martin

First Respondent

Nordburger Operations Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Erik Vari Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure / Interlocutory Order/reasons – Joinder; Service; Notice of Address for Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should make orders requiring the second respondent company to file a notice of address for service by a specific date
  2. 2 Whether and how service of documents upon the company should occur pending the filing of an address for service
  3. 3 Whether dispensing with the default method of service under s 109X of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) is justified on grounds of cost and delay

Ratio Decidendi

In all the circumstances, the need for a convenient, timely and cost-effective means of exchanging documents outweighed the objections raised. Service on the company pending the filing of an address for service can be validly effected by email to both directors, and requiring ongoing physical or postal service would be productive of unnecessary cost and delay. The orders were made pursuant to the Rules and the overriding purpose of civil proceedings.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders made

Orders

  • The second respondent is to file and serve a notice of address for service on or before 11 August 2021.
  • Until a notice of address for service is filed by the second respondent, service by the applicant of any document in the proceeding upon the second respondent may be effected by emailing the document to each of the directors of the second respondent at the email addresses last used by them in any capacity to...