CHRISTOPHER JOHN BASKERVILLE AND TRENT ANDREW DEVINE AS JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF PANTHEA PRIVATE WEALTH PTY LTD
[3]
Pursuant to r 10.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the originating application, statement of claim and plaintiffs' genuine steps statement, filed 13 October 2025 collectively, "the originating documents", are taken to have been served on the first defendant on 20 October 2025.
By 4:00pm AEST on 30 December 2025, the first defendant is to file and serve any defence.
By 4:00pm AEST on 30 January 2026, the plaintiffs file any reply to the first defendant's defence.
The proceeding be listed for a further case management hearing on the first available date following 16 February 2026.
This matter involves an issue with respect to service of the first defendant. The plaintiffs seek an order pursuant to r 10.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) deemed for service. That rule provides that a document is deemed to have been served if "it is not practicable to serve a document" on a person in the way required by the Rules, and there is evidence provided to the Court which demonstrates "that the document has been brought to the attention" of the party to be served. The word "practicable" has been held to have a wide meaning and will depend on the circumstances relevant to the particular proceeding: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v China Environment Group Ltd[2013] FCA 286. The second criteria, whether the document has been brought to the attention of the other party, is a question of fact.
The plaintiffs relied upon the interlocutory application filed 19 November 2025, and the affidavits of Pernnellee Balu and Talysha Sabatino, both filed on 19 November 2025.
As is clear from the material before the Court, and set out in the plaintiffs' submissions, the first defendant has communicated with the plaintiffs' lawyers through his email address, christopher.s.yi@outlook.com, the Yi email address and his mobile number, 0425376725, the Yi mobile number.
The plaintiffs obtained a skip trace report which shows that the first defendant's email address is the Yi email address, and details of the located addresses for the first defendant. The originating documents were sent to the Yi email address, as well as details of the first case management hearing of the proceeding. Mr Yi was copied in correspondence and has directly communicated with the Court in relation to the proceeding, including this morning. The Court sent an order to the first defendant, outlining the proposed timetable to file pleadings in the proceeding
Physical service on the first defendant was unsuccessful at the located addresses. The first defendant does not want to see the process server agent at his residential address. The process server and the first defendant communicated through the Yi mobile number to arrange a place and time to meet, which meeting did not eventuate. On the basis of that material, I therefore accept that personal service on the first defendant has been thoroughly attempted by a licenced process server, and that the originating documents have been brought to the attention of the first defendant by having been sent to the Yi email address on 20 October 2025, and, therefore, that the first defendant was aware of the proceeding, and is also aware of the orders made thus far.
I also accept that, in these circumstances, it is not practicable to serve the originating documents on the first defendant and that using reasonable efforts, the plaintiff is unable to serve the first defendant personally: Kosmos Capital Pty Ltd v Turiya Ventures LLC[2019] FCA 528 and Foxe v Brown (1984) 59 ALJR 196; [1984] HCA 69. In these circumstances, the originating documents are deemed served upon the first defendant on 20 October 2025.
[6]
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Meagher.