Rio Tinto Shared Services Pty Ltd v English Datasystems LLC - [2021] VSC 660

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT
COMMERCIAL LIST

S ECI 2020 04700

RIO TINTO SHARED SERVICES PTY LIMITED (ACN 113 306 077)	Plaintiff
v
ENGLISH DATASYSTEMS LLC	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	LYONS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 October 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Rio Tinto Shared Services Pty Ltd v English Datasystems LLC
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 660

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Service of originating process – Service out of Australia – Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, arts 2-6, 8-10 and 15-16 – Whether procedure for service on a party in a Hague Convention country under ord 80 mandatory – Meaning and effect of pt 1 of ord 7, r 7.09 – Meaning and effect of ord 80, rr 80.02-80.06 – Order 80 incorporates service under art 5 of the Hague Convention – Order 80 not mandatory – Service out of Australia valid if effected in accordance with r 7.09.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	A.M.J Meagher	K&L Gates
For the Defendant	No appearance

HIS HONOUR:

INTRODUCTION

The plaintiff seeks leave to enter judgment against the defendant, a company registered in the state of Texas in the United States of America, in default of appearance pursuant to the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) (‘Rules’). In order to succeed in this application, the plaintiff must show that:

(1) this Court has jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter of this proceeding (the ‘jurisdictional issue’); and

(2) the defendant has been properly served (the ‘service issue’).

While it is clear that the jurisdictional issue has been satisfied, it is less clear that the service issue has been satisfied. This is notwithstanding that, at the defendant’s request, the defendant was served via its lawyers in Texas. The plaintiff submitted that this service was effected in accordance with art 10(c) of the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (the ‘Hague Convention’).

However, it is unclear whether ord 80 of the Rules (which incorporates the means of service in arts 3 to 6 of the Hague Convention) provides an exclusive code for the service of such documents in an overseas country that is a party to the Hague Convention (a ‘Convention country’), such as the United States, or whether the Rules allow for service to be effected by other provisions of the Hague Convention.

These are difficult questions and, in deciding them, I am conscious that I have not had the benefit of a contradictor. Nevertheless, for the reasons that follow, I have concluded that:

(1) r 7.09 is the primary rule specifying the modes of service of an originating process outside Australia (excluding New Zealand), namely personal service or service that is in accordance with the laws of the country in which service is effected;

(2) ord 80 does not provide…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rio Tinto Shared Services Pty Ltd v English Datasystems LLC and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] VSC 660
Decision Date: 13 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rio Tinto Shared Services Pty Ltd v English Datasystems LLC involved a dispute over the validity of service of originating process outside Australia. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the procedure for serving a party located in a country that is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, such as the United States where English Datasystems LLC is based, is mandatory under the rules of court. Specifically, the court needed to determine the applicability and interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Federal Court Rules, including parts 1 and 7, and rules 7.09 and 80.02 to 80.06, in the context of service out of Australia.

The court considered the extent to which Order 80, which governs service out of Australia, incorporates the provisions of the Hague Convention, particularly Article 5. It was necessary to ascertain whether Order 80 is mandatory or permissive and whether service out of Australia is valid if it is conducted in accordance with rule 7.09. The court concluded that Order 80 does incorporate the service provisions under Article 5 of the Hague Convention but is not mandatory in nature. Therefore, service out of Australia is valid if it is effected in accordance with rule 7.09, which provides flexibility in the method of service.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of adhering to international conventions while allowing for practical considerations in the service of judicial documents. The court held that the service was valid as it was conducted in accordance with the rules, and no mandatory procedures under Order 80 were contravened. This decision provides clarity for future cases involving service of process in international litigation under the Hague Convention.

The final orders of the court confirmed the validity of the service and allowed the proceedings to continue against English Datasystems LLC. The court did not find it necessary to stay the proceedings due to the valid service of process. This ruling reinforces the importance of compliance with international conventions while also recognising the practicalities of cross-border litigation.

Orders