Saffari v Amazon.com Inc

Saffari commenced proceedings against Amazon, Bezos, and two other respondents in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, alleging breaches of contract, competition law, privacy law, and tortious duty. The Circuit Court dismissed the proceedings against Amazon, Bezos, and one of the other respondents on the basis that they had not been served within the required time frame. Saffari subsequently applied for leave to appeal to the Federal Court of Australia and sought alternative relief, including orders for deemed service, default judgment, and substituted service under the Hague Convention. The court had to determine whether the service on Amazon and Bezos was effective, whether default judgment could be entered, and whether alternative relief in the form of substituted service should be granted.

The court found that the service on Amazon and Bezos was not effective as it did not comply with the Federal Court Rules 2011. The court held that service on a foreign company based outside Australia requires strict adherence to the rules, and Saffari's attempts at service were insufficient. The court also found that default judgment could not be entered as Saffari had not demonstrated that Amazon and Bezos were aware of the proceedings and had chosen not to participate. Additionally, the court held that alternative relief in the form of substituted service was not appropriate as Saffari had not sought leave to serve out of Australia under the relevant rule. The court dismissed Saffari's application with costs.

The court dismissed Saffari's interlocutory application filed on 20 August 2021, with costs. The orders were entered in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.