Kabbabe v Google LLC

Case [2020] FCA 126


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kabbabe v Google LLC [2020] FCA 126

File number: VID 1331 of 2019
Judge: MURPHY J
Date of judgment: 12 February 2020
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to serve originating application seeking preliminary discovery outside Australia pursuant to Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 10.41 to 10.43 – whether the proceeding is of a kind mentioned in r 10.42 – whether the prospective applicant has a prima facie case for all or any of the relief claimed – service in accordance with the Hague Service Convention – whether service by post is permissible – leave granted to serve originating application outside Australia
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 7.22, 10.41, 10.42, 10.43
Cases cited:

Ahmed v Al-Hussain Pty Ltd t/as The Cheesecake Shop [2018] FCA 1741

AIA Australia Ltd v Richards [2017] FCA 84

Allphones Retail Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2009] FCA 980; (2009) 259 ALR 354

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Seven Network Ltd [2005] FCA 1851

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

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

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

Dow Jones & Co v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56; (2002) 210 CLR 575

Hooper v Kirella Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1584; (1999) 96 FCR 1

Water Splash Inc v Menon 581 U.S.___(2017)

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

Date of hearing: 27 March 2020
Registry: Victoria
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Other Federal Jurisdiction
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 19
Solicitor for the Prospective Applicant: Mr M Stanarevic of Matrix Legal

ORDERS

VID 1331 of 2019
BETWEEN:

MATTHEW ROY KABBABE

Prospective Applicant

AND:

GOOGLE LLC

Respondent

JUDGE:

MURPHY J

DATE OF ORDER:

12 FEBRUARY 2020

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pursuant to rr 10.42 and 10.43 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) the Prospective Applicant has leave to serve:

(a)the originating application filed 6 December 2019;

(b)the affidavit of Mark Stanarevic affirmed 6 December 2019;

(c)the affidavit of Dr Matthew Kabbabe affirmed 10 February 2020; and

(d)a copy of this order;

upon the Respondent in the United States of America, 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 sending it by international registered post, with an acknowledgement of receipt to be provided to the Prospective Applicant, to the Respondent’s address at:

Google LLC

C/O Custodian of Records

1600 Amphitheatre Parkway

Mountain View, California 94043

United States of America

2.The matter be listed for a case management hearing on 25 March 2020 at 9.30 am.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court…

Continue reading Kabbabe v Google LLC

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Kabbabe v Google LLC [2020] FCA 126
Case
[2020] FCA 126
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Kabbabe v Google LLC involves an application to serve an originating application seeking preliminary discovery outside Australia. The applicant, Dr Matthew Kabbabe, filed the application on 6 December 2019, aiming to obtain documents from Google LLC, a United States-based entity, to use in a potential proceeding against the company. The application was brought in the Federal Court of Australia, which has jurisdiction over matters involving federal law, including international service of process under the Hague Service Convention.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the proceeding was of a kind mentioned in rule 10.42 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) and whether the applicant had a prima facie case for all or any of the relief claimed. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether service in accordance with the Hague Service Convention was permissible and if service by post was an acceptable method. The court concluded that the proceeding was of a kind mentioned in rule 10.42 and that the applicant had demonstrated a prima facie case for the relief sought. The court also found that service by post was permissible under the Hague Service Convention.

Following this reasoning, the court granted leave to serve the originating application and related documents on Google LLC in the United States. The order specified that the service should be conducted in accordance with Article 10(a) of the Convention, using international registered post with an acknowledgement of receipt. The court further ordered that the matter be listed for a case management hearing on 25 March 2020 at 9:30 am. The orders were entered in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to rr 10.42 and 10.43 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) the Prospective Applicant has leave to serve:

(a) the originating application filed 6 December 2019;

(b) the affidavit of Mark Stanarevic affirmed 6 December 2019;

(c) the affidavit of Dr Matthew Kabbabe affirmed 10 February 2020; and

(d) a copy of this order;

upon the Respondent in the United States of America, 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 sending it by international registered post, with an acknowledgement of receipt to be provided to the Prospective Applicant, to the Respondent’s address at:

Google LLC

C/O Custodian of Records

1600 Amphitheatre Parkway

Mountain View, California 94043

United States of America

2. The matter be listed for a case management hearing on 25 March 2020 at 9.30 am.

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.