DAVID SARIKAYA v VICTORIAN WORKCOVER AUTHORITY
[1997] FCA 1372
At a glance
Source factsCourt
Federal Court of Australia
Decision date
1997-12-08
Before
Black CJ
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Judgment (4 paragraphs)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLACK CJ: At the callover of the list of appeals for hearing during the next Full Court sittings in Melbourne, the solicitor for the respondent submitted that the present appeal should be adjourned to the next callover for two reasons. The first concerned the filing and service of appeal books, a matter that has now been resolved. The other reason was that the appellant did not, so it was argued, have an address for service which complied with the Federal Court Rules. The argument before me proceeded upon the basis (contrary to what appears in the notice of appeal) that the appellant's present address for service is a Melbourne post office box. The respondent submits that the Rules do not permit this. For reasons that are not presently relevant, the appellant does not wish to use his residential or business address as his address for service. Order 52 r 12(1) provides: "An appeal shall be instituted by filing a notice of appeal which shall be in or substantially in the form numbered 55 in the First Schedule." Form 55 is a form of notice of appeal and it requires the appellant's address for service to be specified. The requirements for an address for service are contained in O 7 r 6(1), which provides: "An address for service must be the address of a place within the District for the Registry in which the originating process is filed (other than the document exchange referred to in rule 7 of this Order), at which documents in the proceedings may, during ordinary business hours, be left for the person whose address for service it is and to which documents in the proceeding may be posted for that person."