Letters Blogatory

The Blog of International Judicial Assistance | By Ted Folkman of Folkman LLC

Posts tagged “Australia

Unfair Criticism of the Day: ABC News on the Hague Child Abduction Convention

Posted on October 26, 2020

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation published a story last week on the Hague Child Abduction Convention. The headline gives a sense of the gist of the story: “Mothers forced to stay in same country as abuser or risk persecution under the Hague Convention.” The Convention, according to one quoted expert, is a “good law gone bad.” What’s the problem? According to the story, Australian immigration law provides that foreign women who marry Australian men and then leave them “may not be entitled to government support in Australia.” So they may want to return to their own countries, where they may be entitled to support; but if they take their children with them, the husband may have the right, under the Convention, to require the mother…

+Read more

Jeanne Huang on Australian Information Commission v. Facebook

Posted on July 14, 2020

Friend of Letters Blogatory Jeanne Huang of the University of Sydney Law School has a report on a recent Australian case on service by email under the Hague Service Convention. Recently, in Australian Information Commission v. Facebook Inc., [2020] FCA 531, the Federal Court of Australia (‘FCA’) addressed substituted service and the Hague Service Convention in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This case is important on whether defendants located in the US can be served by substituted service instead of following the Hague Service Convention.

+Read more

Case of the Day: Shull v. University of Queensland

Posted on January 3, 2019

The case of the day is Shull v. University of Queensland (D. Nev. 2018). Frederick H. Shull Jr. sued the University of Queensland School of Medicine. He sought leave to serve process by mail. The United States and Australia are both parties to the Hague Service Convention. Australia does not object to service by postal channels, though it does require such service to be sent by registered mail. So the answer to the motion should have been to deny it on the grounds that no leave is required: Shull was free to serve process by mail as long as he followed the formalities required by FRCP 4(f)(2)(C)(ii).

+Read more