Tweet
Alternative service via Facebook
Those who noted the report in the last commercial update (see Solicitors Journal, 153/11, 24 March 2009) on an Australian court’s permission for the social networking site Facebook to be used to effect service may be interested to see that it is catching on. On 16 March 2009, Justice David Gendall sitting in the Wellington High Court followed the trend by permitting alternative service via Facebook in Axe Market Gardens v Craig Axe, claim number CIV: 2008-485-2676.
No written reasons appear to have been provided for the judge’s permission to effect alternative service via Facebook but the claimant’s submissions in support of the application are worthy of note as it seems inevitable that such an application will be made in this country in the near future, whether by lawyers or a litigant in person.
In this case:
Solicitors journal 16th June 2009
Those who noted the report in the last commercial update (see Solicitors Journal, 153/11, 24 March 2009) on an Australian court’s permission for the social networking site Facebook to be used to effect service may be interested to see that it is catching on. On 16 March 2009, Justice David Gendall sitting in the Wellington High Court followed the trend by permitting alternative service via Facebook in Axe Market Gardens v Craig Axe, claim number CIV: 2008-485-2676.
No written reasons appear to have been provided for the judge’s permission to effect alternative service via Facebook but the claimant’s submissions in support of the application are worthy of note as it seems inevitable that such an application will be made in this country in the near future, whether by lawyers or a litigant in person.
In this case:
- the claimant had encountered difficulties serving proceedings on the defendant;
- the defendant, the son of the owner of the claimant company, was alleged to have taken the sum of NZ$241,000 from the claimant's bank accounts;
- the defendant was known to be living in England although his exact whereabouts were uncertain;
- the defendant had accessed the stolen funds via the internet while in England; and
- the defendant had corresponded by email and had a Facebook site.
Solicitors journal 16th June 2009
