Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Safety Compliance Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3)

In the case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Safety Compliance Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3), the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission sought to enforce orders made against named respondents. These orders included injunctions, disqualification orders, and pecuniary penalties. The dispute centred around the issue of service of these orders on the respondents, specifically whether the service was deemed to have been effected under rule 10.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. The court was required to determine whether the orders were properly served on the respondents Dean James King and Shane John Black.

The legal issues before the court were whether the orders could be deemed to have been served under rule 10.23, given the various attempts at personal service and the use of email addresses known to be used by the respondents during the proceedings. The court had to consider the evidence presented, including a letter from a solicitor for the respondents, email confirmations, and the personal attendance of the solicitor at the judgment's publication. The primary concern was whether the respondents had been made aware of the orders in accordance with the rule.

The court found that the orders had indeed been brought to the attention of the respondents. It was satisfied that the orders had been emailed to addresses used by the respondents, confirmed by delivery notifications, and that the solicitor for the respondents, Mr. Delaney, had attended the publication of the judgment by telephone and had a copy of the judgment emailed to him. Based on this evidence, the court concluded that the respondents were fully aware of the orders, and therefore, the orders for deemed service were made. The court noted that while the time for compliance with the orders had passed, the respondents were aware of the orders and the consequences of non-compliance.

The court made the orders for deemed service, noting that the orders were to be served on Dean James King and Shane John Black through specific email addresses that had been used during the proceedings. These orders were to be deemed served as of the dates they were emailed, with copies of the orders attached. The court's decision was grounded in the evidence that the respondents had been made aware of the orders through the various means explored, fulfilling the requirements of rule 10.23.