Thaler v Amzalak (No. 4)

The case involved an application by Thaler for a freezing order against Amzalak, aimed at preserving assets that were subject to a judgment debt. The respondent, Amzalak, had been evading service of the application, leading Thaler to seek substituted service. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central legal issue was whether substituted service was permissible in the circumstances where the respondent was deliberately avoiding being served.

The court considered the principles governing substituted service and determined that it was not a matter of principle to deny such service when the respondent was evading the process. It noted that the Federal Court had jurisdiction to grant the application for substituted service, given the respondent's deliberate attempts to avoid service. The court further held that there was a strong likelihood that Amzalak held assets in Australia that needed to be preserved. As such, the court found that the application for substituted service should be granted.

The court subsequently made an order for substituted service and granted the freezing order, directing that Amzalak's assets be preserved. This was to ensure that the judgment debt could be satisfied once established. The court emphasised that the primary purpose of the freezing order was to prevent the dissipation of assets by the respondent, which was a legitimate objective given the circumstances. The decision underscored the importance of ensuring that legal processes are not frustrated by deliberate evasion by respondents.