Judge and Judge
Case
•
[2014] FamCA 528
•18 July 2014
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Judge and Judge [2014] FamCA 528
[2014] FamCA 528
18 July 2014
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The parties involved were the applicants, referred to as "Judges," and the respondent, B Pty Ltd, the plaintiff in Supreme Court of South Australia proceedings number 772 of 2013. The dispute concerned the service of court orders and reasons for judgment. The matter came before Berman J.
The primary legal issue before the court was the proper method and recipient for service of an order made on 15 July 2014 and the accompanying reasons for judgment. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether service upon the plaintiff's solicitors, Iles Selley Lawyers, constituted valid service in accordance with the court's directions.
Berman J ordered that a copy of the order made on 15 July 2014, along with the reasons for judgment, be served upon B Pty Ltd by their solicitors, Iles Selley Lawyers, on or before 4pm on 30 July 2014. This direction clarified the procedural requirement for notifying the plaintiff of the court's decision.
The primary legal issue before the court was the proper method and recipient for service of an order made on 15 July 2014 and the accompanying reasons for judgment. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether service upon the plaintiff's solicitors, Iles Selley Lawyers, constituted valid service in accordance with the court's directions.
Berman J ordered that a copy of the order made on 15 July 2014, along with the reasons for judgment, be served upon B Pty Ltd by their solicitors, Iles Selley Lawyers, on or before 4pm on 30 July 2014. This direction clarified the procedural requirement for notifying the plaintiff of the court's decision.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Judge and Judge [2014] FamCA 528
Most Recent Citation
Judge and Judge (No. 2) [2014] FamCA 723
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
1
Stanford v Stanford
[2012] HCA 52
Bevan & Bevan
[2013] FamCAFC 116
Mullane v Mullane
[1983] HCA 4