Callan v Chawk [2021] FCA 1182

Callan v Chawk [2021] FCA 1182

It was not practicable to personally serve the first respondent despite reasonable attempts, and the proposed methods for substituted service are reasonably likely to bring the proceeding to the first respondent’s attention. The Federal Court has jurisdiction as the alleged defamation was published in Australia, and service on the second respondent in the United States is permissible under the Hague Convention, with the applicant demonstrating a prima facie case for defamation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Defamation Proceeding / Application for Substituted Service and Service Outside Australia
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
['substituted Service' 'service Outside Australia' 'jurisdiction in Defamation' 'service Under Hague Convention']
['practice and Procedure' 'defamation'] ['substituted Service' 'service Outside Australia' 'jurisdiction in Defamation' 'service Under Hague Convention']

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 Application in Defamation Proceeding / Application for Substituted Service and Service Outside Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether personal service on the first respondent is not practicable and substituted service should be ordered under r 10.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)' 'Whether proposed methods of substituted service are reasonably likely to bring proceedings to the attention of the first respondent' 'Whether leave should be granted under rr 10.42 and 10.43 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to serve the second respondent in the United States of America' 'Whether Court has jurisdiction, the claim is based on a cause of action arising in Australia, and the applicant has a prima facie case for defamation']

Ratio Decidendi

It was not practicable to personally serve the first respondent despite reasonable attempts, and the proposed methods for substituted service are reasonably likely to bring the proceeding to the first respondent’s attention. The Federal Court has jurisdiction as the alleged defamation was published in Australia, and service on the second respondent in the United States is permissible under the Hague Convention, with the applicant demonstrating a prima facie case for defamation.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • ['Leave granted for substituted service of originating documents on the first respondent by email, registered post (to two addresses), and Facebook message as set out in the orders.' 'Leave granted for service of the originating application, statement of claim, and genuine steps statement on the second respondent by...