Bartlett v Goodwin

In *Bartlett v Goodwin*, heard by Brown J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the applicant, Mr Bartlett, sought to establish that the respondents, Mr Goodwin, Ms Shin, and EchoNous, had been properly served with court documents. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the methods of service employed by Mr Bartlett were sufficient to bring the proceedings to the attention of the respondents, particularly given that some respondents resided in the United States.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the service of the application on the respondents, including those residing in the United States, had been effective. This involved considering whether the respondents had actual knowledge of the proceedings and the application, even if formal personal service in the United States had not been achieved through conventional means such as the Hague Convention. The Court also had to assess the applicant's assertions regarding the difficulties and delays associated with serving foreign process, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Brown J reasoned that while formal personal service in the United States might present challenges, the evidence presented by Mr Bartlett indicated that the respondents were likely aware of the proceedings. The Court noted that Mr Keogh, a director of EchoNous, had been personally served in Australia, and it was reasonable to infer that EchoNous would therefore be aware of the application. Furthermore, the Court found that the dispatch of applications by overseas mail and email to Mr Goodwin and Ms Shin, coupled with the service of documents on EchoNous's Australian counsel, provided sufficient grounds to conclude that the respondents had been made aware of the proceedings. The Court was not satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated insurmountable difficulties in effecting personal service in the United States, nor had evidence been provided regarding any impediments under United States law.

Consequently, the Court concluded that the process in question had come to the attention of Mr Goodwin, Ms Shin, and EchoNous through the various conduits of service outlined. The Court found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it would be impossible to arrange for personal service in the United States, but ultimately found that the existing methods of service were sufficient to bring the proceedings to the respondents' attention.