© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2009] FCA 1166
Federal Court of Australia
2009-10-08
Bennett J
Original judgment source is linked above.
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2394 of 2006
BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION
AND: APRIL INTERNATIONAL MARKETING SERVICES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 106 134 472
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 Order 7 rule 9 of the Federal Court Rules provides that where, for any reason, it is impractical to serve a document in the manner set out in the Rules, the Court may by motion in an existing proceeding make an ex parte order that, instead of service, such steps be taken as specified in the order for the purpose of bringing the document to the notice of the person to be served. 2 The applicant's evidence establishes a residential address, a business address and an email address for Mr Sood, the person for whom it wishes to obtain orders for substituted service. The evidence also establishes that on three separate occasions, attempts were made to serve Mr Sood personally at his residential address. On one of those occasions there were persons at home at that residential address but when an attempt was made actually to serve the documents, the clerk serving them was told that Mr Sood himself was not at home. The clerk did not give the documents to the person who was there as he said that he needed to give the documents to Mr Sood personally. 3 Order 7 rule 9 of the Rules applies to service outside the jurisdiction in addition to service within Australia. In Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2007] FCA 124 at [8], Allsop J noted that the various meanings that can be attributed to the word 'impractical' include 'practically impossible' or 'that (which) cannot be carried out or done'. I am satisfied that it has been impractical to serve the documents in the manner prescribed in the Rules. 4 I am also satisfied that the proposed course of service, by delivering a copy of the documents both by hand and by mail to Mr Sood at the residential address at which he appears to reside and at his business address and by email at his last known email address, is appropriate for the purpose of bringing the documents to Mr Sood's notice. Accordingly, I make orders 1 to 5 in the notice of motion. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Bennett.
Associate: Dated: 15 October 2009 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr D Godwin
Solicitor for the Applicant: Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Respondents: The respondents did not appear for this notice of motion.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
April International Marketing Services Australia Pty Ltd