Hadgkiss v Aldin [2006] FCA 1164

Hadgkiss v Aldin [2006] FCA 1164

On the affidavit material, substituted service orders were generally appropriate under the stated principles, but the Court was not presently prepared to make the proposed orders for the identified respondents where the evidence did not establish impracticability, did not support a reasonable probability of notice, or required clarification of duplicate or additional addresses; the motion was therefore held open pending further evidence or submissions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Substituted Service / Notice of Motion Made Ex Parte
Outcome
Motion held open pending receipt of any further evidence or submissions on behalf of the applicant concerning the identified respondents; the Court was not presently prepared to make the orders sought for those respondents.
Legal Topics
['substituted Service' 'personal Service' 'impracticability of Service' 'federal Court Rules']
['civil Procedure'] ['substituted Service' 'personal Service' 'impracticability of Service' 'federal Court Rules']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Substituted Service / Notice of Motion Made Ex Parte

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was impractical to serve the application and statement of claim personally on the respondents in the manner required by the Federal Court Rules.' 'Whether the proposed substituted service was reasonably likely to bring the proceedings to the notice of the persons to be served.' 'Whether further evidence or amendment was required for the proposed substituted service orders concerning identified respondents.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the affidavit material, substituted service orders were generally appropriate under the stated principles, but the Court was not presently prepared to make the proposed orders for the identified respondents where the evidence did not establish impracticability, did not support a reasonable probability of notice, or required clarification of duplicate or additional addresses; the motion was therefore held open pending further evidence or submissions.

Court Disposition

Motion held open pending receipt of any further evidence or submissions on behalf of the applicant concerning the identified respondents; the Court was not presently prepared to make the orders sought for those respondents.

Orders

  • []