LFDB v SM (No 5)

Case [2025] FCA 654

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LFDB v SM (No 5) [2025] FCA 654

File number(s): NSD 1665 of 2015
Judgment of: YOUNAN J
Date of judgment: 20 June 2025
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for substituted service of interlocutory application under r 10.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – attempted service on previous legal representatives – respondent may be outside Australia – availability of r 10.49 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – application granted
Legislation:

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37AF

Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) ss 68, 72

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 10.24, 10.49
Cases cited:

Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Windus [2019] FCA 1526

Australian Communications and Media Authority v Jones [2022] FCA 546

Australian Information Commission v Facebook Inc [2020] FCA 531; (2020) 144 ACSR 88

Commissioner of Taxation v Caratti (No 2) [2018] FCA 1500

Deng v Qi, in the matter of Qi [2023] FCA 589

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Zeitouni [2013] FCA 1011; (2013) ALR 603

Ford, in the matter of Careers Australia Group Ltd (in liq) v Mansfield [2022] FCA 173

Kosmos Capital Pty Ltd v Turiya Ventures LLC [2019] FCA 528

LFDB v SM (No 3) [2017] FCA 80

LFDB v SM [2017] FCAFC 178

Ross v Cotter [2015] FCA 310

Statewide Secured Investments Pty Ltd v Tarrant [2011] FCA 1067
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs: 28
Date of last submission/s: 24 April 2025
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr T Goodwin
Solicitor for the Applicants: Mackay Chapman

ORDERS

NSD 1665 of 2015
BETWEEN:

LFDB

First Applicant

DBA(AU)

Second Applicant

DPA(AU) AS TRUSTEE FOR DPT (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Applicant
AND:

SM

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

YOUNAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

20 JUNE 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pursuant to r 10.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the applicants be granted leave to serve the interlocutory application, filed on 25 February 2025, and accompanying affidavit of Michael Chapman, dated 13 February 2025, by causing such documents to be sent together with a copy of this order to:

(a)the email address ______________;

(b)Taylor David Lawyers at the email address c.hagon@taylordavid.com; and

(c)Marque Lawyers at the email address damians@marquelawyers.com.au.

2.Pursuant to r 10.24 of the Rules, service shall be taken to have been effected on the respondent 14 days after the steps in order 1.

3.Costs be reserved. 

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

YOUNAN J:

  1. In early 2009, the first applicant (LFDB) and respondent (SM) separated, triggering protracted litigation across multiple jurisdictions concerning relationship property. The present dispute concerns the registration in this Court of two New Zealand High Court judgments, delivered on 26 November 2015, pursuant to s 68 of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) (TPP Act).   

Continue reading LFDB v SM (No 5)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
LFDB v SM (No 5) [2025] FCA 654
Case
[2025] FCA 654
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In LFDB v SM (No 5), the applicants sought substituted service of an interlocutory application and accompanying affidavit under rule 10.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The application related to a broader legal dispute, though the specifics of this dispute were not detailed in the extract. The applicants had previously attempted to serve the documents on the respondent's legal representatives but were unsuccessful, possibly because the respondent was outside Australia. The legal issues before the court were whether the applicants could proceed with substituted service under rule 10.24 and, if so, whether rule 10.49 was applicable in these circumstances.

The court considered the provisions of rule 10.24, which allows for substituted service when the respondent cannot be found or when the respondent is outside Australia. Given the applicants' unsuccessful attempts to serve the documents and the possibility that the respondent was outside Australia, the court found that substituted service was appropriate. The court also noted that rule 10.49, which deals with service outside Australia, might be relevant but did not need to be addressed in detail for the current decision. The applicants were granted leave to serve the documents as specified in the order, and service was to be deemed effective 14 days after the documents were sent. The court reserved the question of costs.

The orders granted the applicants leave to serve the interlocutory application and affidavit through specified email addresses, with service deemed effective 14 days after dispatch. Costs were reserved for a later determination.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to r 10.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the applicants be granted leave to serve the interlocutory application, filed on 25 February 2025, and accompanying affidavit of Michael Chapman, dated 13 February 2025, by causing such documents to be sent together with a copy of this order to:

(a) the email address ______________;

(b) Taylor David Lawyers at the email address c.hagon@taylordavid.com; and

(c) Marque Lawyers at the email address damians@marquelawyers.com.au.

2. Pursuant to r 10.24 of the Rules, service shall be taken to have been effected on the respondent 14 days after the steps in order 1.

3. Costs be reserved.

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.