The Police’s own press release.
All papers, including the interim intervention order, the extract, explanation and contacts were transcribed was typed out into private messages and sent to the respondents account. A video was recorded of Leading Senior Constable Walton reading the Interim order to the accused, as if the Respondent was being directly spoken to – and served.
It sounds like the order was for substituted service, after all other attempts to serve proved fruitless.
Watch the video (and be served) (after the ad).
Is an accepted practice developing? In an IP practice, why not ex parte orders, interlocutory injunctions …?
Lid dip @lods1211 and @idealaw
Patentology looks at the problems that arise with serving documents in Opposition proceedings before the Commissioner / Registrar (i.e. IP Australia) (a) electronically and (b) outside business hours.
Obviously (well, not so obviously when you’re used to dealing with the pragmatic approach of the Federal Court), if the material is served outside business hours, it is not served until the next business day, but it may be even more complicated if you are trying to effect service electronically.
All very quaint and so 19th century, but fatal!
The rules are rather different than, for example, the postal rules which apply in a contractual relationship; but it isn’t really a contractual relationship.
Where personal service is not required, the Federal Court Rules (O7 r4 and 4A) permit service by document exchange, facsimile or email, however, they (O7 r7) require that the party on whom service is to be effected to have specified the facsimile number or email address to have been specified in a Notice. O7 r4 and 4A also make provision for the time of service. I suspect, however, that these are deemed times of service which would be displaced if one could prove an earlier time of service.
The press is reporting that a Federal Magistrate has allowed a child support application to be served on a “Mr Howard” by Facebook.
Following service, “Mr Howard” shut down his Facebook and MySpace accounts.
See the Age, Sydney Morning Herald.
The reports say the judgment was published last month; but I haven’t found a link to it yet.
Byrne & Howard  FMCAfam 509
with thanks to David Starkoff (possibly better known as “Inchoate”).
Courts have apparently been allowing service of court documents by email and in at least one high profile case against a rugby player alleged to be in breach of his club contract by text message. Now, for those of you looking for reports of the case where the Court allowed service by Facebook, try:
here and here and here and here.
Master Harper’s decision in MKM Capital v Corbo and Poyser doesn’t appear to be online on Austlii yet.
Lid dip: Jane Treleaven
By the way, Jane asks what kind of privacy settings these people were using that their, er, Facepage (?) showed so much personal information?
While teasing out some issues about the Lori Drew prosecution, Eric Goldman also notes there are problems with the reliability of social network sites pages here, here and here (e.g.).