Hochroth v Milecki; Mann v Milecki; Naumburger v Milecki [2018] NSWSC 112

Hochroth v Milecki; Mann v Milecki; Naumburger v Milecki [2018] NSWSC 112

The Court was satisfied on the evidence that personal service on the defendant was not practicable, and that substituted service by email to the defendant's solicitor was appropriate under r 10.14 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

Parties
Plaintiff: James Hochroth; Plaintiff: Curtis Mann; Plaintiff: Rodney Naumburger; Defendant: Rabbi Benzion Milecki
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Substituted Service / Interlocutory
Outcome
Order for substituted service made
Legal Topics
Substituted Service, Service of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Substituted Service Service of Pleadings

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Hochroth

Plaintiff

Curtis Mann

Plaintiff

Rodney Naumburger

Plaintiff

Rabbi Benzion Milecki

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Substituted Service / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order for substituted service should be made for the pleadings to be served by email to the defendant's solicitor.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied on the evidence that personal service on the defendant was not practicable, and that substituted service by email to the defendant's solicitor was appropriate under r 10.14 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Order for substituted service made

Orders

  • Pleadings in each proceeding to be served by email addressed to the defendant's solicitor, Mr Tassel, as per the proposed orders.