Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VoR Environmental Australia Pty Limited v Taset Inc. [2017] FCA 541 File number: NSD 585 of 2017
Judge: LEE J
Date of judgment: 17 May 2017
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether the applicant should have leave to serve its originating application and related documents upon the respondent who is resident in the Republic of Korea – leave granted
Legislation: Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39B(1A)(c) Federal Court Rules 2011, r 10.43 and r 10.43(4)
Cases cited: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Yellow Page Marketing BV [2010] FCA 1218
Date of hearing: 17 May 2017
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 22
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J C Conde
Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr M Stephens of Allens
Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent did not appear
ORDERS NSD 585 of 2017
BETWEEN: VOR ENVIRONMENTAL AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED Applicant
AND: TASET INC. Respondent
JUDGE: LEE J DATE OF ORDER: 17 MAY 2017
THE COURT: 1. GRANTS leave to the applicant, pursuant to FCR 10.42, to serve the Originating Application dated 12 April 2017 on the respondent by causing a copy of a "Letter of Request" under the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters of 15 November 1965 to be completed and sent to the Director of International Affairs, National Court Administration, Supreme Court of Korea by courier, attaching two copies of the Originating Application, the Concise Statement and the applicant's Genuine Steps Statement (as well as certified Korean translations of each of these documents in accordance with Article 3 of the Treaty on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters Between the Republic of Korea and Australia of 17 September 1999). 2. ORDERS that the matter be listed for a further case management hearing at 9.30am on 21 July 2017. 3. GRANTS the applicant liberty to approach the Associate to Lee J to vary the date of the further case management hearing in the event that there is delay in effecting service in accordance with Order 1. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate