FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Titan Enterprises (Qld) Pty Ltd v Cross [2016] FCA 664
File number: QUD 411 of 2016 Judge: EDELMAN J Date of judgment: 7 June 2016 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – substituted service – service by email – where no personal details about respondent’s physical address can be discovered despite exhaustive search – where respondent’s email address is known – whether personal service is “not practicable” Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 8.06, 10.01, 10.24 Cases cited: British American Tobacco Australasia Limited v Taleb (No 1) [2012] FCA 1065
Speedo Holdings BV v Evans [2011] FCA 1089
Statewide Secured Investments Pty Ltd v Tarrant [2011] FCA 1067
Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2007] FCA 124
Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v Delap Impex Ltd [2013] FCA 600; (2013) 103 IPR 421
Date of hearing: Determined on the papers Date of application: 3 June 2016 Registry: Queensland Division: General Division National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Regulator and Consumer Protection Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 19 Solicitor for the Applicants: Mr A Nicholson of Mullins Lawyers Counsel for the First Respondent: The First Respondent did not appear Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent did not appear ORDERS
QUD 411 of 2016 BETWEEN: TITAN ENTERPRISES (QLD) PTY LTD
First Applicant
RIGEL CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD
Second Applicant
RIGEL ERECTORS PTY LTD
Third Applicant
AND: DALE CROSS
First Respondent
ADAM CLIFFORD HARMON
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
EDELMAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
7 JUNE 2016
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Until further order, the applicants have leave, pursuant to r 10.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), to effect personal service of any document in this proceeding on the First Respondent by sending it to him at the email addresses:
(a)dalecrossoz@yahoo.com; and
(b)titancomplaint@bewareoftitangarages.com.
2.Costs reserved.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
EDELMAN J:
Introduction
This is an application for substituted service by Titan Enterprises and two related companies (which I will refer to collectively as Titan Enterprises) against the first respondent, Mr Cross. Titan Enterprises has brought this proceeding against two respondents, Mr Cross and Dr Harmon (the latter as both a primary wrongdoer and as an accessor or joint tortfeasor). The proceeding concerns a website, described as the “Beware of Titan Garages” website, which Titan Enterprises says is operated by the respondents.
Titan Enterprises alleges that Mr Cross and Dr Harmon have (i) infringed its copyright, (ii) infringed its registered marks, (iii) committed the tort of injurious falsehood, (iv) engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, and (v) made false or misleading representations. Titan Enterprises seeks various remedies including injunctions, damages, additional damages, exemplary damages, interest, and costs.
Although Titan Enterprises has been in contact with Dr Harmon and his solicitors, it has failed to discover the physical address for service of Mr Cross. Despite apparently exhaustive searches it has only discovered two email addresses for Mr Cross.…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Titan Enterprises (Qld) Pty Ltd v Cross 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2016] FCA 664
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide whether the service by email was permissible under the Federal Court Rules when personal service was deemed impracticable. Specifically, the court considered if the lack of physical address information rendered personal service not practicable, thus justifying email service. This necessitated a careful interpretation of Rule 10.24 of the Federal Court Rules, which governs substituted service.
The court found that the evidence supported the conclusion that it was impractical for the applicant to serve any document personally upon the respondent. The court emphasised that the applicant had no realistic means of discovering the respondent's physical location. Consequently, the court ruled that the applicant was permitted to serve documents via email, as stipulated in Rule 10.24 of the Federal Court Rules. The court made an order allowing substituted service by email until further notice.
The court ordered that until further direction, the applicant could serve any document on the respondent via email to the addresses provided. Additionally, the court reserved the issue of costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Until further order, the applicants have leave, pursuant to r 10.24 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), to effect personal service of any document in this proceeding on the First Respondent by sending it to him at the email addresses:
(a) dalecrossoz@yahoo.com; and
(b) titancomplaint@bewareoftitangarages.com.
2. Costs 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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.