Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Compulsory Processes of the Federal Court of Australia Cannot be Invoked while Jurisdiction is under Challenge

December 12, 2007/in /by Perry Herzfeld
image_pdfimage_print

In a recent case, the Federal Court of Australia held that a US-incorporated corporation which had been served in the US, and which had filed a conditional appearance only to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction, was not required to produce documents pursuant to a notice to produce (similar to a subpoena). Jacobson J said (at [10]): ‘I do not consider that at this stage of the proceedings in which the jurisdiction is under challenge, the applicant can invoke the compulsory processes of the Court.’ See Armacel Pty Limited v Smurfit Stone Container Corporation [2007] FCA 1928.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Perry Herzfeld https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Perry Herzfeld2007-12-12 05:57:092007-12-12 15:51:54Compulsory Processes of the Federal Court of Australia Cannot be Invoked while Jurisdiction is under Challenge

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Support in cross-border transactions by Adults: Contract law vs capacity law August 12, 2026
  • Recognition of Italian Extrajudicial Divorces in Tunisia — Between Methodological Uncertainty and the Need to Preserve Continuity of Personal Status Across Borders August 9, 2026
  • Private International Law and European Society August 4, 2026
  • The New Zealand Supreme Court’s judgment in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley on anti-enforcement relief August 3, 2026
  • Beyond Domicile: The BHP Litigation and the Functional Interconnection of Public and Private International Law August 3, 2026
  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
Link to: Commission’s Report on the Application of the Council Regulation (EC) 1206/2001 (Taking of Evidence) Link to: Commission’s Report on the Application of the Council Regulation (EC) 1206/2001 (Taking of Evidence) Commission’s Report on the Application of the Council Regulation (EC)... Link to: ECJ Judgment on Articles 11 (2) and 9 (1) (b) Brussels I Regulation Link to: ECJ Judgment on Articles 11 (2) and 9 (1) (b) Brussels I Regulation ECJ Judgment on Articles 11 (2) and 9 (1) (b) Brussels I Regulation
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top