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

  • The Philippines: Recognition of Foreign Divorces and Recent Amendments to the Rules of Court October 21, 2026
  • Mozambican Supreme Court Recognises an Indian Adoption: A Teleological Approach to the Recognition of Foreign Acts October 19, 2026
  • Egyptian Supreme Court Enforces Italian Judgment: The Right Outcome despite Some Reservations October 14, 2026
  • Talaq Divorce Cases in the United States October 7, 2026
  • Book Review: Choice of Forum Clauses in Asia (Lemuel L Lopez) October 5, 2026
  • Zamzam on Egyptian Private International Law (in Arabic): Towards Reviving the Golden Age of Egyptian Private International Law October 2, 2026
  • Maintenance Duties for a Gestational Surrogate Following Non-Recognition – An Unreported Spanish Judgment September 22, 2026
  • From Symbolism to Substance: Comity and Judicial Reform in South Africa’s Foreign Judgments Regime September 15, 2026
  • Persistent and Reasonable Efforts in the Field of Cross-Border Service of Documents. Continuation or Stay of Proceedings? September 12, 2026
  • Speaking for the Dead: Idziski and the Forum for Post-Mortem Likeness Claims September 7, 2026
  • Book Review: Andrew Dickinson and Alexander Thompson, The State Immunity Act 1978 (OUP, 2025) September 7, 2026
  • Political Immobilisation of Iranian Diaspora Property: Lex Situs, Human Rights and Public Policy August 22, 2026
  • The Demise of the Lex Domicilii Matrimonii in South African Private International Law August 18, 2026
  • 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
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