Isaacman v King [2024] NSWSC 1291

The Court has jurisdiction as the defendant was present in Australia and amenable to service when the Statement of Claim was filed; proceedings may continue with pleadings; suppression and pseudonym orders are not justified as exceptional necessity is not established; formal service can occur on the defendant's solicitor according to agreement.

Parties: Plaintiff: Steven Isaacman; Defendant: Meaghan King
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 18 October 2024
Procedural Posture: Civil / Interlocutory Orders; Pre Pleadings
Outcome: Proceedings to continue on pleadings. Amended Notice of Motion dismissed. Plaintiff to bear own costs to date.
Legal Topics: Jurisdiction, Pleading Irregularities, Service of Process, Suppression Orders, Damages

Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Pleading Irregularities Service of Process Suppression Orders Damages

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Steven Isaacman

Plaintiff

Meaghan King

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Orders; Pre Pleadings

Legal Issues

1 Whether the NSW Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the parties
2 Whether suppression and pseudonym orders should be made
3 Whether personal service was effected or if substituted service is required

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Proceedings to continue on pleadings. Amended Notice of Motion dismissed. Plaintiff to bear own costs to date.

Orders

Order, pursuant to Rule 6.6(2) of the UCPR, that these proceedings continue on pleadings.
Order, pursuant to Rule 6.6(3) of the UCPR, that the plaintiff file and serve any proposed Statement of Claim on the defendant within 21 days.