Isaacman v King - [2024] NSWSC 1291

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Isaacman v King [2024] NSWSC 1291
Hearing dates: 12 August 2024
Date of orders: 18 October 2024
Decision date: 18 October 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1) Order, pursuant to Rule 6.6(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (“UCPR”) that these proceedings continue on pleadings.
(2) 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 of the date of this judgment.
(3) Order, pursuant to Rule 10.6(1) of the UCPR that service of any Statement of Claim on the defendant is to occur in accordance with the defendant’s agreement upon her solicitor, Rachael McKendrick or Robinson Gill, Lawyers, Box Hill, Victoria.
(4) Order that the Amended Notice of Motion filed on 20 June 2024 be otherwise dismissed.
(5) Order the plaintiff to bear his own costs of the proceedings to date.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Jurisdiction – Whether the Court has jurisdiction – Court has jurisdiction on the basis that the defendant was present in Australia when the Statement of Claim was filed.
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Pleading – Form and content of pleading – Defects – Where plaintiff commenced proceedings using pseudonyms for the plaintiff and the defendant, without leave of the Court – Whether suppression and pseudonym orders should be made – Court not persuaded to make suppression and pseudonym orders.
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Service – Personal service – Whether effected – Personal service was effected – No requirement for substituted service.

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005
Court Suppression and Non‑Publication Orders Act 2010
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971
Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth)
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA)
Supreme Court Act 1970
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

Cases Cited:
Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Zhao [2015] HCA 5; (2015) 255 CLR 46
DRJ v Commissioner of Victims Rights [2020] NSWCA 136
HT v The Queen [2019] HCA 40; (2019) 93 ALJR 1307
Laurie v Carroll (1957) 98 CLR 310
Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 403; (2011) 93 NSWLR 311
Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 403; (2011) 93 NSWLR 311
TK v Australian Red Cross Society (1989) 1 WAR 335

Texts Cited:
Dicey: Conflict of Laws 6th ed (1949)
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, American Psychiatric Association

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Steven Isaacman (P)
Meaghan King (D)
Representation:
Counsel:
W R Chan
Ex Parte
Solicitors:
Glissan & Associates (P)

File Number(s): 2024/40601
Publication restriction: Not Applicable

JUDGMENT

On 1 February 2024, the plaintiff, who gave himself the pseudonym “AB”, commenced proceedings, by way of Summons, against a female defendant to whom he gave the pseudonym “CD”.
The Summons claimed interim orders and the following by way of final relief:

Damages, including punitive damages;

Interest;

Costs.

Together with the Summons, a brief affidavit was filed which affirmed the existence of the facts upon which…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Isaacman v King

Details

AGLC: Isaacman v King [2024] NSWSC 1291
Case: [2024] NSWSC 1291
Decision Date: 18 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Isaacman v King was a case before the Supreme Court of Queensland where the plaintiff sought to enforce a contractual agreement against the defendant. The dispute involved the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the case, the form and content of the pleadings, and the method of service. The defendant argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff had commenced the proceedings using pseudonyms for both parties without obtaining leave from the Court. Additionally, the defendant claimed that the service of the Statement of Claim was not properly effected.

The primary legal issues the Court had to address were whether the Court had jurisdiction to hear the case, whether the pseudonyms used in the pleadings warranted suppression and pseudonym orders, and whether the service of the Statement of Claim was valid. The Court examined the Civil Procedure Act 2005 and relevant case law to determine the validity of the pseudonyms and service. The Court found that the defendant was present in Australia when the Statement of Claim was filed, which satisfied the jurisdictional requirement. Regarding the pseudonyms, the Court was not persuaded that suppression and pseudonym orders should be made as the pseudonyms did not obscure the identity of the parties involved. The Court also confirmed that personal service of the Statement of Claim was effectively carried out, negating the need for substituted service.

In conclusion, the Court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the matter as the defendant was present in Australia when the proceedings were initiated. The Court declined to make suppression and pseudonym orders, and confirmed the validity of the personal service. The case thus proceeded to the merits of the dispute, without the procedural impediments raised by the defendant.

Orders