Takapana Investments Pty Ltd v Teco Information Systems Co Ltd [1998] FCA 199

Takapana Investments Pty Ltd v Teco Information Systems Co Ltd [1998] FCA 199

The order made under O 7 r2 should be set aside because O 7 r2 authorises only personal service or another method with a personal component. Service on Teco Australia Pty Ltd was, in substance, substituted service on the respondent and was not supported by evidence satisfying the threshold under O 7 r9. The evidence...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 1998
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Application Concerning Service of Originating Process on a Foreign Corporation / Respondent's Notice of Motion to Set Aside the Ex Parte Order for Service and the Service Effected Pursuant to That Order
Outcome
Respondent's motion succeeded; the ex parte order for service and the service effected pursuant to it were set aside, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs.
Legal Topics
['service of Originating Process' 'personal Service' 'substituted Service' 'service Abroad' 'federal Court Rules']
['practice and Procedure'] ['service of Originating Process' 'personal Service' 'substituted Service' 'service Abroad' 'federal Court Rules']

Source-derived case record

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

Practice and Procedure Application Concerning Service of Originating Process on a Foreign Corporation / Respondent's Notice of Motion to Set Aside the Ex Parte Order for Service and the Service Effected Pursuant to That Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the order made under O 7 r2 for service on the respondent by leaving documents with an officer of Teco Australia Pty Ltd should be set aside.' 'Whether the discretion under O 7 r2 permits a method of service without a personal component on a foreign corporation outside the jurisdiction.' 'Whether the service effected was personal service or, in substance, substituted service.' 'Whether the respondent had a presence in Australia or carried on business in Australia through Teco Australia Pty Ltd.']

Ratio Decidendi

The order made under O 7 r2 should be set aside because O 7 r2 authorises only personal service or another method with a personal component. Service on Teco Australia Pty Ltd was, in substance, substituted service on the respondent and was not supported by evidence satisfying the threshold under O 7 r9. The evidence did not establish that the respondent had a presence in Australia or carried on business in Australia through Teco Australia Pty Ltd, and the possible availability of O 8 did not validate service under O 7 r2.

Court Disposition

Respondent's motion succeeded; the ex parte order for service and the service effected pursuant to it were set aside, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • ['The order of Goldberg J made on 19 August 1997 and the service on the respondent of the application and statement of claim effected in accordance with and by virtue of that order be set aside.' "The applicant pay the respondent its taxed costs of the respondent's motion including reserved costs."]