Immerman v London Pie Co Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 97

Immerman v London Pie Co Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 97

The Court granted leave to serve the application and associated documents on the second respondent in South Africa because the requirements of Order 8 rule 2(2) were satisfied: the Court had jurisdiction, the action was for breach of an Act involving damage in Australia, and there was a prima facie case against the second respondent. The applicant is permitted to effect personal service by a private agent.

Parties
Applicant: Mark Immerman; First Respondent: London Pie Company Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Herbert Wolpe
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Application / Directions Hearing; Order for Service Out of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Leave granted for service outside jurisdiction; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Jurisdiction, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Franchise Agreements
Consumer Protection Civil Procedure Service of Process Jurisdiction Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Franchise Agreements

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Immerman

Applicant

London Pie Company Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Herbert Wolpe

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Directions Hearing; Order for Service Out of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should leave be granted to serve the amended application and related documents on the second respondent (Herbert Wolpe) outside Australia?
  2. 2 Does the Court have jurisdiction over the alleged conduct occurring outside Australia?
  3. 3 Is the applicant's claim properly joined and is there a prima facie case for relief against both respondents?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court granted leave to serve the application and associated documents on the second respondent in South Africa because the requirements of Order 8 rule 2(2) were satisfied: the Court had jurisdiction, the action was for breach of an Act involving damage in Australia, and there was a prima facie case against the second respondent. The applicant is permitted to effect personal service by a private agent.

Court Disposition

Leave granted for service outside jurisdiction; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Leave pursuant to Order 8 rule 2(2) to serve the amended application, amended statement of claim, affidavit, this order, and reasons for judgment on the second respondent in South Africa.
  • Leave to serve documents personally on the second respondent by a person engaged on behalf of the applicant.