AIA Australia Ltd v Richards

Case [2017] FCA 84


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AIA Australia Ltd v Richards [2017] FCA 84

File number: NSD 1853 of 2016
Judge: ALLSOP CJ
Date of judgment: 10 February 2017
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where the applicant seeks leave to serve the respondent in Latvia – whether proposed manner of service permitted by Hague Service Convention – whether requirements in r 10.4(3) and (4) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) satisfied – application granted
Legislation:

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 10.42, 10.43

Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. Opened for signature 15 November 1965. 658 UNTS 163 arts 5, 8, 10. (entered into force 1 November 2010)

Cases cited:

Bell v Steele [2011] FCA 1390; 198 FCR 291

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings Ltd [2013] FCA 707; 96 ATR 44

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Power Assets Holdings Ltd (previously known as Hongkong Electric Holdings Ltd) [2013] FCA 708; 96 ATR 51

Kadam v MiiResorts Group 1 Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 1343

Davies M, Bell AS, Brereton PLG, Nygh’s Conflict of Laws in Australia (9th ed, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2014)

Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Hague Service Convention (Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 2006)

Date of hearing: 6 February 2017
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance
Insurance List
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 26
Counsel for the Appellant: Ms R Francois
Solicitor for the Appellant: William Roberts Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: The respondent did not appear

ORDERS

NSD 1853 of 2016
BETWEEN:

AIA AUSTRALIA LTD

Appellant

AND:

VINCENT BRIAN RICHARDS

Respondent

JUDGE:

ALLSOP CJ

DATE OF ORDER:

10 FEBRUARY 2017

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant have leave to file and serve the amended originating application, amended statement of claim and affidavits of Mr Brian Silva sworn on 19 October 2016 and 30 January 2017 upon the respondent in Latvia in accordance with Article 10(a) of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters done at The Hague on 15 November 1965 by:

(a)sending the documents by international registered post with an acknowledgement of receipt to be provided to the applicant; and

(b)having a translation of the documents into Latvian accompany the documents sent by international registered post.

2.The proceeding be listed for further case management at 9:30am on Monday 1 May 2017.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ALLSOP CJ:

Background

  1. This is a proceeding from the Federal Court Insurance List in which the applicant, AIA Australia Ltd, seeks declaratory relief and an award of damages in relation to a contract of life insurance between it and the respondent, Vincent Brian Richards.  It is alleged that the respondent made false and/or fraudulent representations when making claims under…

Continue reading AIA Australia Ltd v Richards

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
AIA Australia Ltd v Richards [2017] FCA 84
Case
[2017] FCA 84
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, AIA Australia Limited, sought leave to serve the respondent, Mr. Richards, in Latvia, as part of a legal dispute concerning insurance matters. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the proposed method of service was permissible under the Hague Service Convention and whether it met the specific requirements outlined in rules 10.4(3) and 10.4(4) of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

The court examined the proposed method of service, which involved sending the relevant documents by international registered post with an acknowledgement of receipt and providing a translation into Latvian. The court assessed whether this method complied with the provisions of Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention. Additionally, it considered whether the requirements of rules 10.4(3) and 10.4(4) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 were satisfied. After careful consideration, the court determined that the proposed method of service was compliant with both the Hague Service Convention and the relevant rules of the Federal Court.

The court granted the applicant's application, allowing it to serve the amended originating application, amended statement of claim, and affidavits on the respondent in Latvia. The court ordered that the documents be sent by international registered post with an acknowledgement of receipt and that a translation into Latvian accompany the documents. The proceeding was also listed for further case management on a specified date.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant have leave to file and serve the amended originating application, amended statement of claim and affidavits of Mr Brian Silva sworn on 19 October 2016 and 30 January 2017 upon the respondent in Latvia in accordance with Article 10(a) of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters done at The Hague on 15 November 1965 by:

(a) sending the documents by international registered post with an acknowledgement of receipt to be provided to the applicant; and

(b) having a translation of the documents into Latvian accompany the documents sent by international registered post.

2. The proceeding be listed for further case management at 9:30am on Monday 1 May 2017.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.