Whung and Whung and Ors (No 2)

Case

[2011] FamCA 822


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Whung and Whung and Ors (No 2) [2011] FamCA 822 [2011] FamCA 822

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter came before the Family Court of Australia, presided over by O’Reilly J, concerning an application by Ms Whung (the applicant) against Mr Whung and several other respondents, including Mr C, Mr V, Ms J, Mr K, and W. The primary dispute revolved around the proper service of initiating process and subsequent court documents on the respondents, particularly Ms J and W, who were nationals and residents of Taiwan.

The court was required to determine whether service effected on the fourth and sixth respondents, Ms J and W, in Taiwan, constituted good service in accordance with the Family Law Rules 2004. Specifically, the court considered Rule 7.19, which governs service in non-convention countries, and whether the methods employed met the requirements of that rule, given that Taiwan is not a signatory to any service convention with Australia.

O’Reilly J found that service on Ms J and W had been good. The court relied on updated information from the Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department website, which indicated that service in Taiwan could be effected by international registered mail, by a local attorney as agent, or pursuant to a letter rogatory. The evidence presented, including affidavits, demonstrated that both Ms J and W had been served by hand by a local attorney acting as their agent, and that initiating process had also been sent by registered mail with return receipt. The court noted that the object of service is to bring court process to a party's attention, and personal service by hand by a local attorney in Taiwan achieved this effectively. Subsequent documents, not being initiating process, were also validly served by registered post.

The court then made orders for the respondents to file their responses and defences by mid-November 2011. It further ordered that if any respondent failed to comply, the applicant could proceed against that respondent on an undefended basis, pursuant to Rule 11.02(2)(c) of the Family Law Rules 2004. The matter was listed for mention on 8 December 2011.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Family Law

  • Civil Procedure

Legal Concepts

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Jurisdiction

  • Reliance

  • Statutory Construction

  • Remedies

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0