FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
International Awards Group LLC v Asian Advertising Festival (Spikes) Asia Pte Ltd (No 2) [2016] FCA 699
File number: | NSD 528 of 2016 |
Judge: | PERRAM J |
Date of judgment: | |
Catchwords: | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – service outside Australia – service of originating application – service of other documents |
Legislation: | |
Heard on the papers | |
Date of last submissions: | 1 June 2016 |
Registry: | New South Wales |
Division: | General Division |
National Practice Area: | Intellectual Property |
Sub-area: | Trade Marks |
Category: | Catchwords |
Number of paragraphs: | 9 |
Solicitor for the Applicant: | DLA Piper Australia |
ORDERS
INTERNATIONAL AWARDS GROUP LLC Applicant | ||
AND: | ASIAN ADVERTISING FESTIVAL (SPIKES) ASIA PTE LTD First Respondent HAYMARKET MEDIA LTD Second Respondent | |
DATE OF ORDER: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The applicant have leave to serve its originating application and a sealed copy of this order on the first respondent in Singapore in accordance with the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Singapore) and the Rules of Court prescribed thereunder.
2. Order 3 of the Orders made on 31 May 2016 be vacated.
3. The return date for the originating application be fixed at 9:30am on 1 August 2016.
4. The applicant have leave to serve a sealed copy of this order on the second respondent in Hong Kong in accordance with the Hague Convention.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
PERRAM J:
1 In International Awards Group LLC v Asian Advertising Festival (Spikes) Asia Pte Ltd (No 1) [2016] FCA 617 I made orders granting the applicant leave to serve its originating application on the second respondent in Hong Kong. I declined, however, to grant leave to serve the originating application on the first respondent (‘AAF’) in Singapore. I also declined to grant leave to serve the applicant’s fast track statement and genuine steps statement on either respondent.
2 I did not make orders for service of the fast track statement and genuine steps statement for two reasons. The first was because the applicant brought its application under rule 10.43 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), which deals with service of an originating application, and neither document is an originating application. The second was because although I accepted that service could in principle be effected under r 10.44, which deals with service of other documents, I was not satisfied that service was permitted by a relevant convention or the laws of either Hong Kong or Singapore.
3 Similarly, I did not make orders for service of the originating application on AAF in Singapore because the applicant, while necessarily relying on the law of Singapore, did not take me to any provision of any law of Singapore which authorised service of foreign process in that country.
4 While I did not make the orders sought, neither did I dismiss the application for leave to serve. Instead I provided further time for these matters to be addressed. Accordingly, the application for leave to serve the originating application on AAF in Singapore is before me again. The application in relation to the fast track statement and genuine steps statement is no longer pursued.
5 For the reasons which follow, I will make the orders sought.
6 Following the initial interlocutory hearing, I was provided with an affidavit of Bee Kee Loh, a Singapore-qualified lawyer at DLA Piper Singapore (a related entity of DLA Piper Australia, solicitors for the applicant), in support of the applicant’s application.
7 Ms Loh’s evidence was that service of foreign legal process in Singapore is dealt with by the Rules of Court prescribed under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Singapore), and that pursuant to Order 65, service of the applicant’s originating application may be effected by a method of service authorised by the Rules of Court for the service of analogous process in Singapore. The applicant’s proposed method of service, being personal service effected by serving the originating application on the chairman, president, secretary, treasurer or other similar officer of AAF or by leaving the originating application at AAF’s registered office, is, according to Ms Loh, an authorised method for the service of analogous process in Singapore. The Rules of Court and section of the Singapore Companies Act that were annexed to Ms Loh’s affidavit suggest that her evidence is correct.
8 I am now persuaded that the law of Singapore provides for service of the applicant’s originating application on AAF in Singapore. Because the return date has been amended it will be necessary to serve the orders fixing a new return date. I am satisfied that this Court’s orders are judicial documents under the Hague Convention.
9 I will order that:
1. The applicant have leave to serve its originating application and a sealed copy of this order on the first respondent in Singapore in accordance with the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Singapore) and the Rules of Court prescribed thereunder.
2. Order 3 of the Orders made on 31 May 2016 be vacated.
3. The return date for the originating application be fixed at 9:30am on 1 August 2016.
4. The applicant have leave to serve a sealed copy of this order on the second respondent in Hong Kong in accordance with the Hague Convention.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Perram. |
Associate:
