[11.10] INTRODUCTION … 617 [11.10] 引言 … 617
[11.20] SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS GENERALLY … 618 [11.20] 一般文件送达…618
[11.30] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 10.1 … 618 [11.30] 《2005 年统一民事诉讼规则》（新南威尔士州）第 10.1 条…618
[11.50] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 10.5 … 619 [11.50] 《2005 年统一民事诉讼规则》（新南威尔士州）第 10.5 条… 619
[11.60] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 35.8 … 620 [11.60] 《2005 年统一民事诉讼规则》（新南威尔士州）第 35.8 条…620
[11.70] SERVICE OF ORIGINATING PROCESS … 620 [11.70] 诉讼文书的送达…620
[11.80] Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 63 … 621 [11.80] 《2005 年民事诉讼法》（新南威尔士州）第 63 条…621
[11.90] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 6.2 … 622 [11.90] 《2005 年统一民事诉讼规则》（新南威尔士州）第 6.2 条…622
[11.100] Personal service … 623 [11.100] 个人服务…623
[11.110] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 10.20, 10.21 … 623 [11.110] 《2005 年统一民事诉讼规则》（新南威尔士州）第 10.20、10.21 条…623
[11.130] Service constituting personal service … 626 [11.130] 构成个人服务的服务…626
[11.140] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 10.9-10.12, 10.22, 10.26 … 627 [11.140] 《2005 年统一民事诉讼规则》（新南威尔士州）第 10.9-10.12 条、第 10.22 条、第 10.26 条…627
[11.150] Service by agreement, acknowledgment or undertaking … 629 [11.150] 经协议、确认或承诺的服务… 629
[11.160] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 10.6 … 630 [11.160] 《2005 年统一民事诉讼规则》（新南威尔士州）第 10.6 条…630
[11.170] Acceptance of service by solicitor … 630 [11.170] 律师接受送达服务 … 630
[11.180] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 10.13 … 630 [11.180] 《2005 年统一民事诉讼规则》（新南威尔士州）第 10.13 条…630
[11.190] Substituted and informal service … 631 [11.190] 替代和非正式送达…631
[11.200] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 10.14 … 632 [11.200] 《2005 年统一民事诉讼规则》（新南威尔士州）第 10.14 条…632
[11.220] Flo Rida v Mothership Music. … 633 [11.220] Flo Rida 诉 Mothership Music 案。 … 633
[11.240] Bulldogs Rugby League Club v Williams … 637 [11.240] Bulldogs 橄榄球联盟俱乐部诉 Williams 案 … 637
[11.260] Nash v Stewart … 638
[11.270] Confirmation of informal service … 640 [11.270] 非正式送达确认…640
[11.280] Waiver of objection to service … 641 [11.280] 放弃对送达的异议 … 641
[11.290] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 10.19 … 641 [11.290] 《2005 年统一民事诉讼规则》（新南威尔士州）第 10.19 条…641
[11.300] Service beyond the jurisdiction … 641 [11.300] 超出管辖范围的服务…641
[11.310] Service outside New South Wales but within Australia … 641 [11.310] 新南威尔士州以外但在澳大利亚境内的服务…641
[11.320] Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) s 20 … 642 [11.320] 《1992 年联邦送达与执行程序法》第 20 条…642
[11.330] Service under UCPR r 10.6 … 643 [11.330] 根据《统一民事诉讼规则》第 10.6 条提供的服务...643
[11.340] Service outside Australia under UCPR Pts 11 and 11A … 643 [11.340] 根据《统一民事诉讼规则》第 11 和 11A 部分在澳大利亚境外进行的服务…643
[11.350] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Sch 6 … 644 [11.350] 《2005 年统一民事诉讼规则》（新南威尔士州）附表 6 … 644
[11.370] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 11.1-11.8, 11.8AA … 646 [11.370] 《2005 年统一民事诉讼规则》（新南威尔士州）第 11.1-11.8 条、第 11.8AA 条...646
[11.390] Agar v Hyde. … 647
[11.410] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) regs 11.8A, 11.9-11.12 … 651 [11.410] 《2005 年统一民事诉讼规则》（新南威尔士州）第 11.8A 条、第 11.9 至 11.12 条… 651
[11.430] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) regs 11A.3-11A. 8 … 652 [11.430] 《2005 年统一民事诉讼规则》（新南威尔士州）第 11A.3-11A.8 条…652
[11.450] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) regs 11A.9-11A. 12 … 655 [11.450] 《2005 年统一民事诉讼规则》（新南威尔士州）第 11A.9-11A.12 条…655
[11.470] TRANS-TASMAN SERVICE … 657 [11.470] 跨塔斯曼服务 … 657
[11.480] Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) ss 8-12 … 657 [11.480] 《2010 年跨塔斯曼诉讼程序法》（联邦）第 8-12 条…657
INTRODUCTION 引言
[11.10] Service of various types of documents is required by the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR). For example, the rules specifically require service of the originating process, affidavits and expert reports. Service of particular documents in civil procedure can also be the subject of a specific court order or direction. For instance, the court may make a direction that the parties serve objections to expert reports on a particular date. There [11.10] 根据《2005 年统一民事诉讼规则》（新南威尔士州）（UCPR），各类法律文书的送达是必需的。例如，该规则明确要求对初始诉讼文件、宣誓书和专家报告进行送达。在民事诉讼中，特定文书的送达也可能是法院具体命令或指示的对象。例如，法院可指示各方在特定日期送达对专家报告的异议。
are various methods of service (personal service or service by post, email, fax or DX). ^(1){ }^{1} The method and manner of effecting service can be required by the UCPR or may be the subject of a court order/direction. Originating process, for example, is generally required to be served personally, although under certain circumstances, the UCPR allow other means of service to be considered equivalent to personal service. The court also has power to make an order for substituted service, as when it orders that service be effected by (for example) Facebook (which is not a method of service specifically provided for in the rules). This chapter discusses the requirements and methods of service. It also considers service of originating process outside New South Wales, both within and outside Australia. 有多种送达方式（亲自送达或通过邮寄、电子邮件、传真或 DX 送达）。 ^(1){ }^{1} 送达的方式和方法可由《统一民事诉讼规则》（UCPR）规定，也可能是法院命令/指示的主题。例如，原诉文件通常需要亲自送达，但在某些情况下，UCPR 允许其他送达方式被视为等同于亲自送达。法院还有权作出替代送达的命令，例如命令通过 Facebook（规则中未具体规定的送达方式）进行送达。本章讨论送达的要求和方法，还考虑了在新南威尔士州以外（包括澳大利亚境内和境外）对原诉文件的送达。
SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS GENERALLY 一般文件送达服务
[11.20] A party who files a document must as soon as practicable serve copies on each other active party: see UCPR r 10.1 (extracted at [11.30]). A document is filed when it is lodged at the court registry at which time it is stamped with the court seal. A document can also be filed in court during the proceedings. The rules can also require the time for service in general terms. For example, the rules require affidavits that a party intends to use (but has not filed) be served not later than a “reasonable time” before their intended use: see UCPR r 10.2. Otherwise, the affidavit may not be used without leave of the court. [11.20] 提交文件的一方必须尽快向其他各方送达副本：参见《统一民事诉讼规则》第 10.1 条（摘录于[11.30]）。文件在提交至法院登记处时即视为已提交，此时文件将加盖法院印章。文件也可在诉讼过程中当庭提交。规则还可对送达时间作一般性要求。例如，规则要求当事人拟使用（但尚未提交）的宣誓书须在拟使用前"合理时间"内送达：参见 UCPR 第 10.2 条。否则，未经法院许可不得使用该宣誓书。
Service can be proved by filing an affidavit of service in accordance with r 35.8 (see [11.60]). 服务可以通过按照规则 35.8 提交送达宣誓书来证明（参见[11.60]）。
[11.30] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 10.1 [11.30] 《2005 年统一民事诉讼规则》（新南威尔士州）第 10.1 条
Part 10 - Service of Documents Generally 第 10 部分 - 文件的一般送达
Division 1 - Service generally 第 1 部分 - 服务总则
10.1 Service of filed documents 10.1 已提交文件的服务
(cf SCR Pt 15, r 28) （参见 SCR 第 15 部分第 28 条规则）
(1) Unless the court orders otherwise, a party that files a document must as soon as practicable serve copies of the document on each other active party. (1) 除非法院另有命令，提交文件的当事人必须尽快向其他各活跃当事人送达该文件的副本。
(2) In the case of proceedings in the Local Court, an originating process may, and a defence must, be served on the other parties, on behalf of the party by whom it was filed, by an officer of the Local Court. (2) 在地方法院的诉讼程序中，起诉文件可由地方法院官员代表提交方送达其他各方，而答辩状必须由地方法院官员代表提交方送达其他各方。
Note - See rules 10.7 and 10.8 as to how service is to be effected by a court. 注 - 关于法院如何送达，参见规则 10.7 和 10.8。
(3) Despite subrule (2), a defence that is filed in proceedings in the Local Court by means of Online Registry (within the meaning of Part 3) must be served on the other parties by the party that filed the defence rather than by an officer of the Local Court. (3) 尽管有第(2)款的规定，通过在线登记系统（如第 3 部分所定义）在地方法院诉讼中提交的答辩状，必须由提交答辩状的当事人而非地方法院官员向其他各方送达。
[11.40] There are various ways of serving a document, though not all may be available to all parties at all times (see eg UCPR r 10.20 requiring personal service in certain circumstances). The various methods of service that may be available are set out in UCPR r 10.5 (extracted at [11.50]). [11.40] 送达文件有多种方式，但并非所有方式在所有情况下都适用于各方（例如参见《统一民事诉讼规则》第 10.20 条要求在特定情况下进行亲自送达）。可用的各种送达方式在《统一民事诉讼规则》第 10.5 条中列出（摘录见[11.50]）。
[11.70] “Service” is the term used for methods of alerting people that there are proceedings against them. [11.70] “送达”是指用于通知人们对其提起诉讼程序的方法。
Service performs a number of important functions. The first is in relation to procedural fairness or natural justice. ^(2){ }^{2} If the plaintiff is going to ask the court to make orders that will affect the defendant, fairness requires that the defendant should be informed of the nature of the action against them and the orders that the plaintiff is seeking. The second is that service establishes the court’s jurisdiction for actions in personam (actions against a person to compel the performance of an act such as the payment of money or the delivery of goods). ^(3)A{ }^{3} \mathrm{~A} court cannot exercise any of its powers unless it has jurisdiction over the defendant. 服务履行多项重要职能。首先是关于程序公平或自然正义。 ^(2){ }^{2} 如果原告要求法院作出影响被告的命令，公平原则要求被告应被告知针对他们的诉讼性质及原告所寻求的命令。其次，送达确立了法院对属人诉讼（针对个人以强制履行某项行为，如支付款项或交付货物）的管辖权。 ^(3)A{ }^{3} \mathrm{~A} 除非对被告拥有管辖权，否则法院无法行使任何权力。
This is notwithstanding that there are some procedures that are available ex parte (with only one party present and without service of process or notification to the other party). For example, search orders pursuant to UCPR r 25.19 are made on an ex parte basis because they are made in urgent circumstances in which notice of the order could potentially destroy its effectiveness. 尽管如此，仍存在一些单方面程序（仅一方在场且无需向另一方送达或通知）。例如，根据《统一民事诉讼规则》第 25.19 条的搜查令就是单方面作出的，因为此类命令是在紧急情况下发布的，通知对方可能会破坏其有效性。
The originating process and copies of it are usually filed in the court registry and stamped with the court seal (after satisfying any requirement to pay a filing fee). The original is left with the registry and a stamped copy is usually served on the defendant. An originating process must be served personally on any defendant (UCPR r 10.20(2)). This is because the main purpose of service is to bring proceedings to the attention of the defendant. Proper notice of proceedings is a requirement of natural justice and due process. An “originating process” is defined in the 原诉程序及其副本通常提交至法院登记处，并在满足缴纳立案费等相关要求后加盖法院印章。原件留存于登记处，而加盖印章的副本通常送达被告。根据《统一民事诉讼规则》第 10.20(2)条规定，原诉程序必须亲自送达每位被告。这是因为送达的主要目的是让被告知悉诉讼程序。对诉讼程序的适当通知是自然正义和正当程序的基本要求。"originating process"在《统一民事诉讼规则》中被定义为
See, for example, the High Court decision in Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596 at [7] in which the rules of natural justice were applied to a coronial inquiry so that a Coroner could not lawfully make any finding adverse to the interests of a person without first giving them the opportunity to make submissions against the making of such a finding (Mason CJ, Deane and McHugh JJ). 例如，参见高等法院在 Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596 第[7]段中的判决，其中自然正义规则被应用于验尸调查，因此验尸官在未首先给予某人机会就作出不利其利益的裁决提出意见之前，不得合法地作出任何不利该人的裁决（Mason CJ、Deane 和 McHugh JJ）。
UCPR Dictionary, by reference to s 3 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) (CPA), as “the process by which proceedings are commenced, and includes the process by which a cross-claim is made”. This definition includes the statement of claim or summons by which proceedings have been commenced and a statement of cross-claim and a cross-summons. Note, however, that personal service of a cross-claim is not required where the cross-defendant is already an active party in the proceedings: see r9.6(1)\mathrm{r} 9.6(1). Rule 6.2(4)6.2(4) (extracted at [11.90]) provides the time for service of originating process after filing. Note that the court may, by order, extend or abridge any time fixed by the rules (r 1.12). UCPR 词典参照《2005 年民事诉讼法》（新南威尔士州）（CPA）第 3 条，将"process"定义为"启动诉讼的程序，包括提出交叉索赔的程序"。该定义涵盖启动诉讼的索赔声明或传票，以及交叉索赔声明和交叉传票。但需注意，当交叉被告已是诉讼中的积极当事人时，无需对交叉索赔进行个人送达：参见 r9.6(1)\mathrm{r} 9.6(1) 。规则 6.2(4)6.2(4) （摘录见[11.90]）规定了提交文件后原始送达的时间要求。需注意法院可通过命令延长或缩短规则规定的任何时限（规则 1.12）。
In Hunterv Hanson [2014] NSWCA 263, the New South Wales Court of Appeal by majority (McColl and Macfarlan JJA; Emmett JA dissenting) dismissed an application for leave to appeal against the decision of the District Court to extend the time for service of a statement of claim. The respondent in the appeal had sued the applicant for defamation and had decided to delay service of the statement of claim for two reasons: first, to wait for the delivery of an unconnected Court of Appeal decision with possible implications concerning absolute privilege on similar facts; and second, to avoid aggravating the situation with the applicant in respect of whose conduct the respondent had sought an apprehended personal violence order. The Court of Appeal majority found that the primary judge had not demonstrated material error by considering these reasons when granting the extension. 在 Hunterv Hanson [2014] NSWCA 263 案中，新南威尔士州上诉法院以多数意见（McColl 和 Macfarlan 法官赞同；Emmett 法官持异议）驳回了针对地区法院延长起诉书送达期限决定的许可上诉申请。该案被上诉人以诽谤罪起诉上诉人，并基于两点理由决定延迟送达起诉书：其一，等待另一项无关上诉法院判决的公布（该判决可能对类似事实中的绝对特权问题产生影响）；其二，避免激化与上诉人之间的紧张关系（被上诉人已针对上诉人行为申请了人身暴力禁止令）。上诉法院多数意见认为，初审法官在批准延期时考虑这些理由并未构成实质性错误。
The person serving the defendant (usually a professional process server) then completes an affidavit attesting to the fact that the defendant has been served. This is commonly known as an “affidavit of service”. UCPR r 35.8 identifies the important details that must be contained in the affidavit of service: a statement as to when, where, how and by whom service was effected; a statement as near as practicable to the actual words used by the person to whom the process was delivered, and a statement that the person making the affidavit (the deponent) is over the age of 16 years. 向被告送达文件的人员（通常是专业送达员）随后需完成一份宣誓书，证明被告已收到送达。该文件通常被称为“送达宣誓书”。《统一民事诉讼规则》第 35.8 条明确了送达宣誓书必须包含的关键细节：关于送达时间、地点、方式及执行人员的陈述；尽可能接近实际用语的陈述（即接收文件者的原话）；以及宣誓人（作证者）年龄超过 16 周岁的声明。
If the defendant does not file an appearance or a defence within a time specified on the originating process after process has been served, the plaintiff may be able to obtain a default judgment: see Chapter 15. 如果被告在送达后未在原始程序指定的时间内提交出庭或答辩，原告可能获得缺席判决：参见第 15 章。
Service that does not comply with the UCPR could result in the setting aside of default judgment unless the court overlooks the improper service. Section 63 of the CPA gives the court power to treat any failure to comply with the Act or the rules of the court as a procedural irregularity and to make orders confirming the improper service. ^(4){ }^{4} For further discussion of s 63, see Chapter 10. 不符合《统一民事诉讼规则》(UCPR)的送达行为可能导致缺席判决被撤销，除非法院忽略该不当送达。《民事诉讼法》(CPA)第 63 条赋予法院将任何违反该法或法院规则的行为视为程序性违规的权力，并可作出确认不当送达的裁定。 ^(4){ }^{4} 关于第 63 条的进一步讨论，请参阅第 10 章。
63 Directions with respect to procedural irregularities 63 关于程序违规的指示
(cf Act No 52 1970, s 81; Act No 9 1973, s 159; Act No 11 1970, s 75A) （参见 1970 年第 52 号法案第 81 条；1973 年第 9 号法案第 159 条；1970 年第 11 号法案第 75A 条）
(1) This section applies to proceedings in connection with which there is, by reason of anything done or omitted to be done, a failure to comply with any requirement of this Act or of rules of court, whether in respect of time, place, manner, form or content or in any other respect. (1) 本节适用于因任何作为或不作为而导致未能遵守本法或法院规则任何要求的程序，无论是在时间、地点、方式、形式或内容方面，还是在任何其他方面。
(2) Such a failure - (2) 这样的失败
(a) is to be treated as an irregularity, and (a) 应被视为违规行为，
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) cont. 《2005 年民事诉讼法》（新南威尔士州）续
(b) subject to subsection (3), does not invalidate the proceedings, any step taken in the proceedings or any document, judgment or order in the proceedings. (b) 在不影响第(3)款的前提下，不影响诉讼程序、诉讼中采取的任何步骤或诉讼中的任何文件、判决或命令的有效性。
(3) The court may do either or both of the following in respect of proceedings the subject of a failure referred to in subsection (1) - (3) 对于第(1)款所述违规行为所涉诉讼，法院可采取以下一项或两项措施——
(a) it may, by order, set aside the proceedings, any step taken in the proceedings or any document, judgment or order in the proceedings, either wholly or in part, (a) 它可以通过命令撤销诉讼程序、诉讼中采取的任何步骤或诉讼中的任何文件、判决或命令，全部或部分撤销
(b) it may exercise its powers to allow amendments and to make orders dealing with the proceedings generally. (b) 它可以行使权力允许修正并作出处理诉讼程序的一般性命令。
(4) The court may not take action of the kind referred to in subsection (3)(a) on the application of any party unless the application is made within a reasonable time and, in any case, before the party takes any fresh step in the proceedings after becoming aware of the failure. (4) 除非申请是在合理时间内提出，且在任何情况下，均须在当事人意识到失误后、在诉讼中采取任何新步骤之前提出，否则法院不得根据任何一方当事人的申请采取第(3)(a)款所述行动。
[11.100] The originating process usually must be served on the defendant personally: see UCPR r 10.20(2). Rule 10.21 provides instructions as to how personal service is to be effected. See Chapter 9 at [9.20] for the definition of an originating process. [11.100] 原诉程序通常必须亲自送达被告：参见《统一民事诉讼规则》第 10.20(2)条。第 10.21 条规定了如何进行亲自送达。关于原诉程序的定义，请参阅第 9 章[9.20]。
The originating process and all further pleadings are to contain an address for service. After the originating process is personally served, other documents usually are not required to be personally served. They may be posted to the recipient’s address or left at his or her address with a person apparently above the age of 16 years and living at the address. If a party has an address for service that is an address of a solicitor’s office, service on that party of all further documents may be by way of their DX address, fax number or emailed to an electronic service address: see r 10.5. 原诉程序及所有后续诉状均须载明送达地址。原诉程序经亲自送达后，其他文件通常无需再行当面送达，可通过邮寄至收件人地址，或交由该地址内明显年满 16 岁且居住于此的人员代收。若一方当事人的送达地址为律师事务所地址，则后续文件可通过其 DX 地址、传真号码或电子送达地址（参见规则 10.5）进行送达。
Other documents required to be served personally under the UCPR are: 根据《统一民事诉讼规则》（UCPR）要求需亲自送达的其他文件包括：
Notice of motion: A notice of motion is required to be served personally on a person who is not a party to the proceedings or who is a party, but not an active party: r 18.5 . 动议通知：动议通知须亲自送达非诉讼当事人或虽为当事人但非积极参与方的个人：见规则 18.5。
Copy of a judgment before committal or sequestration: A sealed copy of the judgment must be served personally on the person bound by the judgment: r 40.7. 扣押或查封前判决书的副本：必须将加盖印章的判决书副本亲自送达受判决约束的人：规则 40.7。
Subpoena: Subpoenas must be personally served on the addressee: r 33.5. However, r 10.20(2)(d)10.20(2)(\mathrm{d}) permits service by post of subpoenas for production in proceedings in the District Court or the Local Court. 传票：传票必须亲自送达收件人：规则 33.5。然而，规则 10.20(2)(d)10.20(2)(\mathrm{d}) 允许通过邮寄方式送达地区法院或地方法院诉讼中的出庭传票。
10.21 How personal service effected generally 10.21 个人服务如何普遍生效
(cf SCR Part 9, rule 3; DCR Part 8, rules 3 and 14; LCR Part 7, rules 3 and 14) （参见 SCR 第 9 部分第 3 条；DCR 第 8 部分第 3 条和第 14 条；LCR 第 7 部分第 3 条和第 14 条）
(1) Personal service of a document on a person is effected by leaving a copy of the document with the person or, if the person does not accept the copy, by putting the copy down in the person’s presence and telling the person the nature of the document. (1) 向个人送达文件时，可通过将文件副本交给该人完成；若该人不接受副本，则可在其在场时放下副本并告知其文件性质。
(2) If, by violence or threat of violence, a person attempting service is prevented from approaching another person for the purpose of delivering a document to the other person, the person attempting service may deliver the document to the other person by leaving it as near as practicable to that other person. (2) 如因暴力或暴力威胁导致试图送达文件的人员无法接近另一人以交付文件，则送达人员可在尽可能靠近该另一人的位置留置文件以完成送达。
(3) Service in accordance with subrule (2) is taken to constitute personal service. (3) 根据第(2)款进行的送达视为个人送达。 qquad\qquad
[11.120] The defendant does not have to reside permanently in the jurisdiction to be validly served. He or she might merely be visiting New South Wales for a short period of time and intending to leave. A court has discretion to decline to proceed if it decides that that court is a “clearly inappropriate forum”. ^(5){ }^{5} [11.120] 被告不必永久居住在该司法管辖区即可被有效送达。他或她可能只是短暂访问新南威尔士州并打算离开。如果法院认定该法院是“明显不合适的管辖地”，则有权酌情拒绝继续审理。 ^(5){ }^{5}
Personal service can be effected in one of two ways: 个人服务可以通过以下两种方式之一实现：
If the person being served does not refuse to accept the document, it is validly served “by leaving a copy of the document with the person” being served. In this context, it is not necessary that the nature of the document be described to the defendant. A document can be left with the person even if the document is not taken by that person into his or her physical possession. Service was held to be valid in Ainsworth v Redd, ^(6){ }^{6} where the defendant told the process server to give it to his representative who was standing next to him and afterward the defendant was heard to say: “We’d better look at these”. 如果被送达人未拒绝接收文件，则“将文件副本留给被送达人”即为有效送达。在此情况下，无需向被告说明文件的性质。即使文件未被该人实际持有，仍可将文件留给他/她。在 Ainsworth 诉 Redd 案（ ^(6){ }^{6} ）中，法院认定送达有效，当时被告告诉送达人将文件交给站在他旁边的代表，随后有人听到被告说：“我们最好看看这些”。
If the person being served does not accept the document, a copy of the originating process may be placed “in his or her presence” and the nature of the document explained to the person. In Graczyk vv Graczyk, ^(7){ }^{7} the requirement of placing the document in the person’s presence was fulfilled by pushing it under a locked door. In Re Hudson; Ex parte G E Crane sigma^(@)\sigma^{\circ} Sons Ltd, ^(8){ }^{8} it was satisfied by attaching the document to the front of a locked door and at the same time telling the defendant that this was occurring. As to the requirement that the nature of the document be explained, in Re Sunnya Pty Ltd, ^(9){ }^{9} Black J confirmed earlier authorities that had found that the requirements are not demanding and need not be done if the nature of the document is clear on its face: 如果被送达人不接受文件，可将原始程序文件副本“置于其面前”并向其解释文件的性质。在 Graczyk vv Graczyk, ^(7){ }^{7} 案中，通过将文件推入锁着的门下方满足了将文件置于当事人面前的要求。在 Re Hudson; Ex parte G E Crane sigma^(@)\sigma^{\circ} Sons Ltd, ^(8){ }^{8} 案中，通过将文件贴在锁着的门正面并同时告知被告这一行为满足了要求。关于解释文件性质的要求，在 Re Sunnya Pty Ltd, ^(9){ }^{9} 案中，Black 法官确认了早期判例的观点，即若文件性质在表面上已清晰明了，则无需严格履行解释义务。
16 The second limb or r 10.21 applies, as I have noted above, where a person does not accept the relevant documents and requires that the documents be put down in the person’s presence, as plainly occurred here, and that the person be told the nature of the document. Mr Mostafa [Plaintiffs’ solicitor] draws attention to two cases where service was effected under that limb of r 10.21(1). In Primelife [Corporation Ltd v Newpark Pty Ltd [2003] VSC 106], to which I referred above, Nettle J held at [26] that service within that second limb was effected by saying that the person had documents for service, holding them out uncovered, and launching them into the path of the person to be served so that he walked over them and proclaiming “you are served”. Here, Mr Carpenter’s evidence establishes that he identified himself as a process server, plainly indicating that he was there to serve relevant documents, and (by implication) that he was there to serve court documents; he provided the documents in an open plastic cover, although I recognize that not all of the documents could be read at the same time by his doing so; he then placed the documents at Mr Wu’s [Defendant’s] feet; and, as I have noted above, he then emphasised, twice, that Mr Wu had been served with the relevant documents. 16 正如我上文所述，第二项或规则 10.21 适用于当事人不接受相关文件并要求在其在场时将文件放下（此处显然发生了这种情况），并告知其文件性质的情形。Mostafa 先生（原告方律师）提请注意根据规则 10.21(1)第二项完成送达的两个案例。在我上文提到的 Primelife Corporation Ltd v Newpark Pty Ltd [2003] VSC 106 案中，Nettle 法官在第 26 段裁定，通过声明当事人有待送达的文件、将文件无遮盖地展示、将其投掷到被送达人行走路径使其踩踏并宣告“你被送达了”，即构成第二项下的有效送达。 卡彭特先生的证词表明，他明确表明自己是送达传票的人员，清楚地表示他是来送达相关文件的，并（隐含地）表明是来送达法庭文件；他将文件放在一个敞开的塑料封套中提供，尽管我承认由于他的这一做法，并非所有文件都能同时被阅读；随后他将文件放在吴先生（被告）脚边；并且，如上所述，他随后两次强调吴先生已被送达相关文件。
17 Mr Mostafa also refers to the decision in Lawindi v Elkateb [2001] 187 ALR 479; [2001] FCA 1527 to which Nettle J had in turn referred in Primelife. In that case, Stone J (as her Honour then was) had noted that a similar rule of the Federal Court Rules required that the person be informed of the “nature” of the document and that requirement was “not very demanding”, and found that that requirement was satisfied where it was likely that the person would have been able to deduce the nature of the documents served from the past dealings with the applicant in the Court. Here, the existence of past dealings in respect of the contempt application is, it seems to me, a very significant matter. Mr Mostafa notes, in submissions, and I need not repeat, the several attempts which had been made to serve Mr Wu documents relating to this application. Documents relating to the application have also been provided to solicitors acting for Mr Wu or his companies or both, on more than one occasion, although those solicitors have not had instructions to accept service of those 17 Mostafa 先生还提到了 Lawindi 诉 Elkateb 案[2001] 187 ALR 479；[2001] FCA 1527 的判决，该案曾被 Nettle 法官在 Primelife 案中引用。在该案中，Stone 法官（当时其尊称如此）指出，联邦法院规则中的类似条款要求告知当事人文件的“性质”，且这一要求“并不十分苛刻”，并认定当当事人很可能能够从与法院申请人的过往交往中推断出所送达文件的性质时，该要求即已满足。在我看来，此处关于藐视法庭申请的过往交往记录的存在是一个非常重要的事项。Mostafa 先生在提交的材料中指出，且我无需重复，已多次尝试向吴先生送达与此申请相关的文件。与此申请相关的文件也曾不止一次地提供给代表吴先生或其公司或两者兼有的律师，尽管这些律师并未获得接受送达这些文件的授权。
documents for Mr Wu. On at least one occasion, Counsel retained either by Mr Wu or his companies has appeared in Court at a directions hearing in respect of this application. It is plain enough that Counsel would then have understood the nature of the application and I readily infer that the nature of the application was then communicated by Counsel, or the solicitors instructing Counsel, to Mr Wu. On 13 March 2024, a solicitor in a firm acting for Mr Wu’s companies requested and was provided with copies of documents relating to the application, although that firm again indicated that he did not have instructions to act on behalf of Mr Wu , and I infer that the solicitor who obtained those documents then at least advised Mr Wu of their nature. 吴先生的文件。至少有一次，由吴先生或其公司聘请的律师就本申请出席了法庭的方向听证会。很明显，律师当时已经理解了申请的性质，我很容易推断出，申请的性质随后由律师或指示律师的律师事务所传达给了吴先生。2024 年 3 月 13 日，一家代表吴先生公司的律师事务所的律师请求并获得了与本申请相关的文件副本，尽管该事务所再次表示他没有获得代表吴先生行事的指示，我推断，获得这些文件的律师当时至少向吴先生告知了文件的性质。
In circumstances where there is violence or apprehended violence, the process server is permitted to leave the document as close as practicable to the person being served. 在存在暴力或可预见的暴力情况下，送达人可以将文件尽可能实际地留在被送达人附近。
The central purpose of ensuring service is valid is that the document is brought to the attention of the person being served. If there is any doubt that valid service has taken place, it is prudent to make an application and obtain an order for confirmation of informal service under UCPR r 10.14. Under r 10.14(3), the court may also direct that, where steps have been taken to serve other than under an order under this rule, the person is taken to have been served on a particular date. This circumstance would likely occur only if the court is satisfied that procedural fairness has been accorded to the person to be served and that that person has been put on actual notice of the claim. 确保服务有效的核心目的是使文件被送达人知悉。若对有效送达存疑，明智的做法是提出申请并根据《统一民事诉讼规则》第 10.14 条获得非正式送达确认令。根据第 10.14(3)款，法院亦可指示：若已采取本规则命令之外的其他步骤进行送达，则该人应被视为已在特定日期被送达。此种情形仅在法院确信已给予被送达人程序公正且其已实际知悉诉讼主张时方可能发生。
Service constituting personal service 构成个人服务的服务
[11.130] There are alternative forms of service that are taken to constitute personal service on various legal and business entities. UCPR r 10.9 provides for service on defendants operating under an unregistered business name, while r 10.10 provides for service on defendants operating under a registered business name. Rule 10.11 provides for service on a partner in a limited partnership. For these entities, personal service is constituted by leaving the document with a person over 16 years of age at the place in which the business is carried on or by sending the document by post, addressed to the defendant at the address of the business. Rule 10.22 concerns personal service on a corporation and can be effected by personally serving a principal officer of the corporation or by serving the document on the corporation in any other manner prescribed by law. For example, s 109X(1)(a)109 \mathrm{X}(1)(\mathrm{a}) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that a document may be served on a company by “leaving it at, or posting it to, the company’s registered office”. Compliance with this provision in s 109(X)(1)(a) of the Corporations Act therefore also satisfies the applicable requirement in r 10.22 of the UCPR. [11.130] 存在其他形式的送达方式，这些方式被视为对各类法律及商业实体的个人送达。《统一民事诉讼规则》第 10.9 条规定了对以未注册商号运营的被告的送达方式，而第 10.10 条则规定了以注册商号运营的被告的送达方式。第 10.11 条规定了对有限合伙企业中合伙人的送达方式。对于这些实体，个人送达可通过将文件留置于营业场所内年满 16 周岁的人员处，或通过邮寄方式将文件寄送至被告营业地址来实现。第 10.22 条涉及对公司的个人送达，可通过亲自送达公司主要高级职员或依法规定的其他任何方式向公司送达文件。例如，《2001 年公司法（联邦）》第 109X(1)(a)109 \mathrm{X}(1)(\mathrm{a}) 条规定，文件可通过“留置或邮寄至公司注册办事处”的方式向公司送达。因此，遵守《公司法》第 109X(1)(a)款的这一规定，也同时满足《统一民事诉讼规则》第 10.22 条的适用要求。
Service of process on a person under legal incapacity is dealt with in UCPR r 10.12. The rules also address how personal service is to be effected on the Crown Solicitor (r 10.23), on judicial officers (r 10.24) and on an inmate of a correctional centre (r 10.25). 对无法律行为能力人的送达程序由《统一民事诉讼规则》第 10.12 条规定。该规则还规定了如何向皇家检察官（第 10.23 条）、司法官员（第 10.24 条）以及惩教中心在押人员（第 10.25 条）进行个人送达。
An interesting occasion on which personal service can be constituted is where there is strong evidence that the person to be served is “keeping house”. This means that the person to be served remains in premises to which a process server cannot lawfully or practicably obtain access. In order for r 10.26 to be available as a method of service, there must be evidence that the person is actually remaining in the premises at the time(s) of the attempted service. ^(10){ }^{10} 个人送达可以成立的一个有趣情形是有充分证据表明被送达人正在“闭门不出”。这意味着被送达人留在送达人员无法合法或实际进入的场所。要使规则 10.26 可作为送达方式，必须有证据证明被送达人在尝试送达时确实留在该场所内。 ^(10){ }^{10}
See Khanna v Gunesekera [2021] NSWDC 133 (rejecting argument that service could be effected in accordance with r 10.26 because defendants were able to provide evidence that they were out of Australia at the time that attempts at service were made and therefore could not be keeping house at those times). 参见 Khanna v Gunesekera [2021] NSWDC 133 案（驳回了关于可根据规则 10.26 进行送达的论点，因为被告能够提供证据表明他们在尝试送达时不在澳大利亚，因此当时不可能在家）。
Rule 10.26 provides for the server to affix the document to the premises and then to post a notice to the person advising them of that fact. 规则 10.26 规定，服务器需将文件张贴于场所，并向相关人员发出通知，告知该事实。
10.10 Service of process on defendant operating under registered business name 10.10 对以注册商号运营的被告的诉讼文书送达
(cf SCR Part 64, rule 3) （参见 SCR 第 64 部分，规则 3）
(1) This rule applies to any proceedings against a person carrying on business under a registered business name in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by the person in the course of, or in relation to, business carried on under that name. (1) 本规则适用于针对以注册商号经营业务的个人所提起的任何诉讼，涉及该人在以该商号经营业务过程中或与之相关的事项中所实施或未实施的行为。
(2) For the purposes of any such proceedings, any document may be served on the defendant, whether sued in his or her own name or under the registered business name - (2) 就任何此类法律程序而言，无论被告是以其本人名义还是以注册商号被起诉，均可向其送达任何文件
(a) by leaving it with a person who is apparently engaged in the business, and apparently of or above the age of 16 years, at any place at which business is carried on under that name, or (a) 将其留给明显从事该业务、且年龄明显为 16 岁或以上的人，在该名称下开展业务的任何地点，或
(b) by sending it by post, addressed to the defendant: (b) 通过邮寄方式，寄送至被告：
(i) to any place at which business is carried on under that name, or (i) 至任何以该名称开展业务的场所，或
(ii) to the address for service of any person in whose name the business name is registered under the Business Names Act 2002, (ii) 根据《2002 年商业名称法》注册该商业名称的任何人的送达地址，
whether or not the place concerned is within New South Wales. 有关地点是否位于新南威尔士州境内。
(3) For the purposes of any such proceedings: (3) 就任何此类程序而言：
(a) service of a document in accordance with subrule (2) is taken to constitute personal service, and (a) 根据第(2)款规定的文件送达视为亲自送达，
10.22 Personal service on corporation 10.22 对公司进行个人服务
(cf SCR Part 9, rule 3; DCR Part 8, rule 12; LCR Part 7, rule 12) （参见 SCR 第 9 部分第 3 条；DCR 第 8 部分第 12 条；LCR 第 7 部分第 12 条）
Personal service of a document on a corporation is effected: 向公司送达文件是通过个人服务完成的：
(a) by personally serving the document on a principal officer of the corporation, or (a) 通过亲自向公司的主要负责人送达文件，或
(b) by serving the document on the corporation in any other manner in which service of such a document may, by law, be served on the corporation. (b) 通过以法律允许的任何其他方式向公司送达该文件。
10.26 Personal service on person who "keeps house" 10.26 对“看家人”的个人服务
(1) If a person keeps house (that is, remains in premises to which a person attempting service cannot lawfully or practicably obtain access), the person attempting service may serve the document on the person keeping house - (1) 如果某人持续居家（即停留在试图送达文件的人无法合法或实际进入的场所），试图送达文件的人可将文件送达给该居家者——
(a) by doing one of the following - (a) 通过执行以下操作之一 -
(i) placing the document in the mail-box for the premises, (i) 将文件放入该处所的邮箱中，
(ii) affixing the document to an outer door of the premises, (ii) 将文件张贴于场所的外门上
(iii) if the person attempting service cannot lawfully or practicably obtain access to any such mail-box or door, affixing the document to some part of the premises, or to some fence or wall surrounding the premises, as near as practicable to the principal door or entrance to the premises, and (iii) 若试图送达文件的人无法合法或实际接触到任何此类信箱或门，则应将文件尽可能实际地贴附在房屋的某部分，或房屋周围的围栏或墙壁上，尽量靠近房屋的主门或入口处，
(b) within 24 hours after doing so, by posting a notice to the premises, addressed to the person keeping house, informing the person of the fact that the document has been so placed or affixed. (b) 在完成上述行为后的 24 小时内，通过向房屋张贴通知的方式告知住户，通知中需说明文件已按上述方式放置或粘贴。
(2) Service in accordance with subrule (1) is taken to constitute personal service. (2) 根据第(1)款进行的送达视为亲自送达。
Service by agreement, acknowledgment or undertaking 根据协议、确认或承诺提供服务
[11.150] Service of any document, including originating process, may be effected “in accordance with any agreement, acknowledgment or undertaking by which the party to be served is bound” (UCPR r 10.6). For example, a contract can stipulate an agreement that service in regard to judicial proceedings will be effected in accordance with the contract rather than the rules of court. However, such an agreement must specifically pertain to the mode of service. [11.150] 任何文件（包括原诉文件）的送达均可“按照被送达方受约束的任何协议、确认或承诺”进行（《统一民事诉讼规则》第 10.6 条）。例如，合同可约定与司法程序相关的送达将依据该合同而非法院规则执行。但此类协议必须明确涉及送达方式。
In Mondial Trading Pty Ltd v Interocean Marine Transport Inc, ^(11){ }^{11} an agreement concerning the appropriate jurisdiction to bring a claim was held not to encompass an agreement as to mode of service. In a case where a bank (the mortgagee) commenced proceedings against the mortgagor for possession of land the subject of a mortgage due to the mortgagor’s default in payments under the mortgage, the court held that a statement of claim could be served by leaving it at the mortgaged property because the mortgage included an express term to that effect: Westpac Banking Corp v Thurairajah [2009] NSWSC 442 at [6] per Barrett J. Note that r 10.6 also includes any “acknowledgment or undertaking” in regard to service. 在 Mondial Trading Pty Ltd 诉 Interocean Marine Transport Inc 案中， ^(11){ }^{11} 关于提起诉讼的适当管辖权的协议被认为不包括关于送达方式的协议。在一起银行（抵押权人）因抵押人未按抵押协议支付款项而针对抵押人提起土地占有诉讼的案件中，法院认为，起诉书可以通过留置在抵押财产上的方式送达，因为抵押协议中包含了一项明确条款对此作出规定：Westpac Banking Corp 诉 Thurairajah [2009] NSWSC 442 案第 6 段，Barrett 法官的意见。请注意，规则 10.6 还包括任何关于送达的“确认或承诺”。
[11.160] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 10.6 《2005 年统一民事诉讼规则》（新南威尔士州）第 10.6 条
Division 2 - Manner of service 第 2 分部 - 送达方式
10.6 Service in accordance with agreement between parties 10.6 根据双方协议提供服务
(cf SCR Pt 9, r 9; DCR Pt 8, r 15; LCR Pt 7, r 15) （参见 SCR 第 9 部分第 9 条；DCR 第 8 部分第 15 条；LCR 第 7 部分第 15 条）
(1) In any proceedings, any document (including originating process) may be served by one party on another (whether in New South Wales or elsewhere) in accordance with any agreement, acknowledgment or undertaking by which the party to be served is bound. (1) 在任何诉讼程序中，一方当事人可依照另一方当事人受约束的任何协议、确认或承诺（无论在新南威尔士州或其他地方），通过送达任何文件（包括原诉文件）的方式向另一方当事人进行送达。
(1A) In relation to the service of an originating process in proceedings on a claim for possession of land, the agreement, acknowledgment or undertaking referred to in subrule (1) must be made after the originating process is filed but before it is served. (1A) 关于在土地占有权诉讼中对起始程序送达的规定，第(1)款所指的协议、确认或承诺必须在起始程序提交后但在送达前作出。
(2) Service in accordance with subrule (1) is taken for all purposes (including for the purposes of any rule requiring personal service) to constitute sufficient service. (2) 根据第(1)款进行的送达在所有目的（包括任何要求亲自送达的规则之目的）上均被视为构成充分送达。
Acceptance of service by solicitor 律师接受服务
[11.170] Personal service requirements may be dispensed with if a party’s solicitor accepts service. The solicitor accepting service must make a notation on the document as evidence that he or she has accepted service on behalf of the person to be served. [11.170] 如果一方当事人的律师接受送达，则可以免除个人送达要求。接受送达的律师必须在文件上注明，以证明其已代表被送达人接受送达。
10.13 Acceptance of service by solicitor 10.13 律师对服务的接受
(SCR Pt 9, r 7; DCR Pt 8, rr 6 and 7; LCR Pt 7, rr 6 and 7) (SCR 第 9 部分，第 7 条；DCR 第 8 部分，第 6 和 7 条；LCR 第 7 部分，第 6 和 7 条)
If a solicitor notes on a copy of - 如果律师在副本上注明
(a) any originating process, or (a) 任何原诉程序，或
(b) any other document required or permitted to be served in any proceedings, but not required to be personally served, (b) 任何其他在诉讼中要求或允许送达的文件，但不要求亲自送达的
that he or she accepts service of the document on behalf of any person, the document is taken to have been duly served on that person on the date on which the note is made or on such earlier date of service as may be proved. 他或她代表任何人接受该文件的送达，则该文件被视为已在作出该备注之日或可证明的更早送达日期正式送达该人。
Substituted and informal service 替代和非正式服务
[11.190] Substituted service may be available where it is not practicable for personal service to take place. Instead of personal service or a mode of service required by the rules, the court may order that such other specified steps be taken in order to bring the document to the attention of the person concerned. Typically, substituted service orders are made when the defendant has been evading service. There are two matters to be satisfied: [11.190] 在无法实际进行当面送达的情况下，可采用替代送达方式。法院可下令采取其他特定步骤以使相关文件引起当事人注意，以替代当面送达或规则要求的送达方式。通常，在被告逃避送达时会作出替代送达命令。需满足两个条件：
Substituted service may be directed by the court only where the kind of service required by the rules “cannot practicably” be undertaken. To establish this, evidence should be led that a prior attempt or multiple prior attempts to serve in accordance with the rules failed or that service in accordance with the standard rules and modes of service would be futile. Mere cost or inconvenience to a plaintiff will not be persuasive. Affidavit evidence will need to explain why service is not practicable or why previous attempts failed. 法院只有在规则所要求的送达方式“实际上无法”执行时，方可指令替代送达。为此，需提供证据证明此前已依据规则尝试过一次或多次送达但未成功，或依据标准规则及送达方式进行送达将徒劳无功。仅因原告方成本增加或不便并不构成充分理由。宣誓书证据需阐明为何送达不可行或此前尝试失败的原因。
The steps proposed to be taken in lieu of service pursuant to the rules must address “the purpose of bringing the document to the notice of the person concerned”. There should be evidence showing that the substituted service is reasonably likely to bring the proceedings to the defendant’s attention. ^(12){ }^{12} Affidavit evidence is required deposing to the inquiries that have been made, and support must be provided about the efficacy of any proposed alternative ways of bringing the proceedings to the attention of the party to be served. 根据规则拟采取的替代送达步骤必须满足“将文件送达相关人员知悉的目的”。应有证据表明替代送达方式合理可能使被告知悉诉讼程序。 ^(12){ }^{12} 需提供宣誓证据说明已进行的查询，并须佐证所提议的任何替代送达方式能使应受送达方知悉诉讼程序的实效性。
In Syndicate Mortgage Solutions vv El-Sayed, ^(13){ }^{13} the defendants and cross-claimants applied for an order for substituted service in order to serve an Amended Statement of Cross-claim on one of the cross-defendants named in the Statement of Cross-claim. The cross-claimants alleged that the cross-defendant could not be found and therefore could not be served personally, at the registered address of a business at which the cross-defendant had allegedly once been seen working or at two alternative addresses associated with corporations at which, according to ASIC’s database of corporations, the cross-defendant was or formerly was an officer. The cross-claimants proposed to serve the cross-claimant by leaving their Amended Statement of Claim at a third address, which is the registered address of several companies at which the cross-defendant was allegedly an officer. 在 Syndicate Mortgage Solutions vv El-Sayed 案中，被告兼交叉索赔申请人申请了一项替代送达命令，以便向交叉索赔声明中列名的一位交叉被告送达修订版交叉索赔声明。交叉索赔人声称无法找到该交叉被告，因此无法在其注册营业地址（据称曾有人在该处见到该交叉被告工作）或与公司相关的两个替代地址（根据 ASIC 公司数据库，该交叉被告当前或曾经担任这些公司的高级职员）进行亲自送达。交叉索赔人提议通过将修订版交叉索赔声明留在第三个地址（该地址是据称由该交叉被告担任高级职员的数家公司的注册地址）来完成送达。
The Court rejected the application for substituted service, finding that the cross-claimants had not satisfied the requirements in r 10.14. First, the Court was not convinced that the cross-claimants had established that service was impracticable. The Court found that the cross-claimants had not provided sufficient evidence of “other types of searches and inquiries including real property, electoral roll, telephone listings, credit references, and inquiries of occupants at former addresses - which are usually undertaken to locate persons or establish 法院驳回了替代送达的申请，认为交叉索赔人未能满足规则 10.14 的要求。首先，法院不认为交叉索赔人已证明送达是不可行的。法院发现交叉索赔人未能提供足够的证据，证明“包括不动产、选民名册、电话簿、信用记录以及对前住址居住者的查询等其他类型的搜索和查询——这些通常是用来定位人员或确认”
that they cannot be found”. The Court was further not satisfied that the proposed method of service would bring the proceedings to the cross-defendant’s attention: “The only method proposed is leaving the document at the Castle Hill address. Although [cross-defendant] is a former officer of a number of … companies which also have their registered offices at the Castle Hill address, the evidence does not establish that he had - let alone currently has - any connection with [those companies]. I do not think it can be inferred from the circumstances that companies of which he was once an officer use that address as their registered office, that he has such a connection with the address that documents that are left there are likely to come to his attention.” “无法找到他们”。法院进一步认为，所提议的送达方式无法确保交叉被告知悉诉讼程序：“唯一提议的方式是将文件留在 Castle Hill 地址。尽管[交叉被告]曾是数家……公司的前高管，这些公司的注册地址也位于 Castle Hill，但现有证据无法证明他曾经——更不用说现在——与[这些公司]存在任何关联。我认为，不能仅凭他曾担任高管的公司使用该地址作为注册办公地这一情况，就推断出他与该地址存在足以确保留置文件能被其注意到的关联。”
It is a question of degree as to how much effort is required by the plaintiff to locate the defendant prior to obtaining an order for substituted service. Inquiries might be made of employers, employees, commercial contacts and family, as well as searches of property information authorities (eg, councils, land title offices), the electoral roll and on the internet. If an address can be found, registered post or service on the spouse might be an alternative substitute. Even if such searches are fruitless, the information obtained might be useful for supporting the efficacy of the alternative steps that are suggested. For example, if information is obtained that the person to be served is active in a particular trade or profession, advertisements in specific trade or professional publications might be suggested. The degree of urgency will also be taken into account. For example, in Amos Removals or Storage Pty Ltd v Small, ^(14){ }^{14} a summons was issued on a Thursday that had to be served by 5 pm Friday, and there were 19 defendants who were spread across New South Wales. Under those circumstances, substituted service was allowed. 原告在获得替代送达令之前需要付出多少努力来定位被告是一个程度问题。可以向雇主、雇员、商业联系人及家庭成员进行查询，并搜索房产信息机构（如地方议会、土地登记处）、选民名册及互联网。若能找到地址，挂号信或向配偶送达可能是替代选择。即使这些搜索无果，所获信息也可能有助于支持所建议替代措施的有效性。例如，若获悉待送达人员在特定行业或职业中活跃，则可能建议在相关行业或专业出版物上刊登广告。紧急程度也将被纳入考量。例如，在 Amos Removals or Storage Pty Ltd 诉 Small 案中， ^(14){ }^{14} 传票于周四签发，须在周五下午 5 点前送达，而 19 名被告分散在新南威尔士州各地。在此情况下，法院允许了替代送达。
In Violi v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2015] NSWCA 152, the New South Wales Court of Appeal by majority (Bergin CJ in Eq and Sackville AJA; Emmett JA dissenting) overturned a decision of the District Court that had dismissed an application to set aside default judgment. The District Court had held that an order for substituted service had been complied with and the applicant had not established grounds for failing to file a defence in time. But the Court of Appeal majority held that applying for default judgment requires meticulous compliance with the UCPR so that court officials can ascertain that all preconditions for default judgment have been satisfied. In the case at hand, the affidavit of service by the respondent bank had not clearly proved that service had been effected because it is insufficient “merely [to assert] personal service or service in accordance with a substituted service order” without providing the actual facts of service. 在 Violi 诉澳大利亚联邦银行案[2015] NSWCA 152 中，新南威尔士州上诉法院以多数意见（Bergin 首席衡平法官和 Sackville 助理法官；Emmett 法官持异议）推翻了地区法院驳回撤销缺席判决申请的裁决。地区法院认为替代送达令已得到遵守，且申请人未能证明未及时提交答辩的正当理由。但上诉法院多数意见认为，申请缺席判决必须严格遵守《统一民事诉讼规则》(UCPR)，以确保法院工作人员能够确认缺席判决的所有前提条件均已满足。本案中，被告银行提交的送达宣誓书未能清晰证明送达已完成，因为仅主张"已进行亲自送达或按替代送达令完成送达"而未提供实际送达事实是不够的。
10.14 Substituted and informal service generally 10.14 替代和非正式送达的一般规定
(cf SCR Pt 9, rr 10 and 11; DCR Pt 8, rr 5 and 16; LCR Pt 7, rr 5 and 16) （参见 SCR 第 9 部分，第 10 和 11 条规则；DCR 第 8 部分，第 5 和 16 条规则；LCR 第 7 部分，第 5 和 16 条规则）
(1) If a document that is required or permitted to be served on a person in connection with any proceedings - (1) 如果任何诉讼程序中要求或允许向某人送达文件——
(a) cannot practicably be served on the person, or (a) 实际上无法向该人送达，或
(b) cannot practicably be served on the person in the manner provided by law, (b) 无法以法律规定的方式实际送达该人
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) cont. 《2005 年统一民事诉讼规则》（新南威尔士州）续
the court may, by order, direct that, instead of service, such steps be taken as are specified in the order for the purpose of bringing the document to the notice of the person concerned. 法院可通过命令指示，采取命令中规定的步骤，以将文件送达相关人员知悉，而无需进行正式送达。
(2) An order under this rule may direct that the document be taken to have been served on the person concerned on the happening of a specified event or on the expiry of a specified time. (2) 根据本规则作出的命令可指示该文件在发生特定事件或经过特定时间后即视为已送达有关人员。
(3) If steps have been taken, otherwise than under an order under this rule, for the purpose of bringing the document to the notice of the person concerned, the court may, by order, direct that the document be taken to have been served on that person on a date specified in the order. (3) 如已采取步骤（非依本规则项下命令）以使相关人士知悉该文件，法院可下令指定该文件视为已于命令所述日期送达该人。
(3A) An application for an order under this rule must be supported by an affidavit by the applicant that includes: (3A) 根据本规则申请命令的申请必须附有申请人宣誓书，其中应包括：
(a) a statement as to the applicant’s knowledge of the whereabouts of the person to be served, and (a) 关于申请人对于被送达人下落的知悉情况的声明，以及
(b) a statement as to any communications that have occurred between the applicant and the person to be served since the cause of action in the proceedings arose (including any communications by telephone, fax or electronic mail). (b) 自诉讼事由产生以来，申请人与被送达人之间发生的任何通讯（包括通过电话、传真或电子邮件进行的通讯）的声明。
(4) Service in accordance with this rule is taken to constitute personal service. 根据本规则进行的送达视为亲自送达。
dots soc\ldots \operatorname{soc}
[11.210] The court’s power to make an order for substituted service depends on the applicant establishing the impracticability of service in accordance with the rules. In Flo Rida vv Mothership Music Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 268 (extracted below), the court held that there was insufficient evidence to establish the impracticability of service in accordance with the rules. Therefore, an order for substituted service was not made. [11.210] 法院作出替代送达命令的权力取决于申请人能否证明按照规则进行送达是不切实际的。在 Flo Rida vv Mothership Music Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 268 案（摘录如下）中，法院认为没有足够的证据证明按照规则进行送达是不切实际的。因此，法院未作出替代送达的命令。
Flo Rida v Mothership Music Flo Rida 诉 Mothership Music
[11.220] Flo Rida v Mothership Music Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 268 [11.220] Flo Rida 诉 Mothership Music Pty Ltd 案 [2013] NSWCA 268
[An American rapper by the name of Flo Rida entered into a contract to perform at a music festival in Newcastle in October 2011. However, he failed to appear. When the promoter received information that the rapper was visiting Australia in April 2012 for radio engagements, a statement of claim was filed against Flo Rida and his agent in the District Court seeking damages for breach of contract. An order freezing Flo Rida’s assets in Australia was also obtained. An attempt at service of documents in Victoria failed. 一位名叫 Flo Rida 的美国说唱歌手于 2011 年 10 月签订合同，约定在纽卡斯尔的一个音乐节上演出，但他未能出席。当主办方得知该说唱歌手将于 2012 年 4 月前往澳大利亚参加电台活动时，便向地区法院对 Flo Rida 及其经纪人提起诉讼，要求赔偿违约损失。同时还获得了冻结 Flo Rida 在澳大利亚资产的命令。在维多利亚州尝试送达法律文件未果。
An order for substituted service was then made in the District Court permitting service of originating process by email and by posting a message on Facebook. By this time, Flo Rida had left Australia. The defendants failed to file a defence or appear and default judgment was entered against them. Flo Rida then appealed against the judgment on the ground that the District Court should not have made the order for substituted service. The New South Wales Court of Appeal (Macfarlan, Ward and Gleeson JJA) unanimously upheld his appeal.] 随后，地区法院下达了一项替代送达令，允许通过电子邮件和在 Facebook 上发布消息的方式送达诉讼文件。此时，Flo Rida 已离开澳大利亚。被告既未提交答辩也未出庭，法院因此对他们作出了缺席判决。Flo Rida 随后以地区法院不应下达替代送达令为由对判决提出上诉。新南威尔士州上诉法院（Macfarlan、Ward 和 Gleeson 三位法官）一致支持了他的上诉。
MACFARLAN JA 麦克法兰 JA
[14] In her judgment of 18 April 2012, the primary judge referred as follows to the questions of jurisdiction and substituted service: [14] 在 2012 年 4 月 18 日的判决中，初审法官对管辖权问题和替代送达问题作出如下阐述：
Flo Rida v Mothership Music cont. Flo Rida 诉 Mothership Music 案（续）
10 This brings me to the form of the application for substituted service … 10 这让我想到了替代送达的申请形式…
11 … in the Federal Magistrates Court (Byrne v Howard [2010] FMCAFAM 509), Brown FM made an order for substituted service via Facebook and other electronic means including email ([17] to [28]). Such an order could conceivably cover Twitter accounts as well as Facebook accounts if that was necessary. Similar evidence was put before the learned magistrate in that case to the evidence that is before me today. 11 … 在联邦治安法院（Byrne v Howard [2010] FMCAFAM 509）一案中，Brown FM 法官下达了一项通过 Facebook 及其他电子方式（包括电子邮件）进行替代送达的命令（[17]至[28]段）。可以设想，若有必要，此类命令同样可适用于 Twitter 账户及 Facebook 账户。该案中向治安法官提交的证据与今日呈递至本庭的证据类似。
12 I pause to note that the nature of Facebook has been carefully explained in a number of judgments, including Facebook, Inc. v Callverse Pty Ltd [2008] AUDND 11 at [5], where Facebook was in fact the applicant. The international reach of Facebook is such that it is a matter of notorious fact. 12 我在此稍作停顿，需要指出的是，Facebook 的性质已在多份判决书中得到详细阐释，其中包括 Facebook, Inc.诉 Callverse Pty Ltd 案[2008] AUDND 11 第[5]段，该案中 Facebook 实际上是原告方。Facebook 的国际影响力之广，已成为众所周知的事实。
13 Service by email is not controversial, and I note that orders for substituted service via email were made in Specsavers Pty Ltd v Buyinvite Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 230, Bellingen Shire Council v Lamir-Pike [2010] NSWLEC 195 and Asteron Life Limited v Franck [2009] NZHC 450 (noting an example of additional service on Facebook in Axe Market Gardens v Craig Axe (CIV: 2008-485-2676, High Court Wellington, 16 March 2009, Gendall A J), at [9]). 通过电子邮件送达服务并无争议，我注意到在 Specsavers Pty Ltd 诉 Buyinvite Pty Ltd 案[2012] FCA 230、Bellingen Shire Council 诉 Lamir-Pike 案[2010] NSWLEC 195 以及 Asteron Life Limited 诉 Franck 案[2009] NZHC 450 中已作出通过电子邮件进行替代送达的命令（另可参考 Axe Market Gardens 诉 Craig Axe 案（案件编号：CIV: 2008-485-2676，惠灵顿高等法院，2009 年 3 月 16 日，Gendall A J 法官）第[9]段中提及的通过 Facebook 进行补充送达的实例）。
The order for substituted service 替代送达的命令
[15] For these reasons, the primary judge made the following order for substituted service: [15] 基于这些原因，主审法官作出了以下替代送达命令：
(4) An order that substituted service be effected on the second defendant by: (4) 命令以以下方式对第二被告进行替代送达：
(a) sending a copy of the Statement of Claim, Notice of Motion dated 13 April 2012, Affidavit of Stephanie Borg sworn 13 April 2012, Orders of Gibson DCJ dated 13 April 2012, together with a copy of this order, by email transmission to the recipients [who were not identified]; and (a) 通过电子邮件将索赔声明副本、2012 年 4 月 13 日的动议通知、Stephanie Borg 于 2012 年 4 月 13 日宣誓的宣誓书、Gibson DCJ 于 2012 年 4 月 13 日发布的命令以及本命令副本发送给未指明的收件人；
(b) sending a message to the second defendant via the provision to do so appearing on his Facebook page (referred to in the Affidavit of Stephanie Borg sworn 17 April 2012) to the following effect: (b) 通过其 Facebook 页面上提供的发送消息功能（参见 Stephanie Borg 于 2012 年 4 月 17 日宣誓的宣誓书）向第二被告发送一条包含以下内容的消息：
On Friday, 13 April 2012, Mothership Music Pty Ltd commenced proceedings against you in the District Court of New South Wales, Australia seeking damages for breach of contract in respect of your non-appearance on 22 October 2011 at the ‘Fat as Butter’ Concert at Camp Shortland, The Foreshore Newcastle. In addition, the Court ordered that you do not diminish your assets in Australia below $80,000\$ 80,000 and also made additional ancillary orders. These orders were renewed today together with an order that you may be served by the sending to you of this message by your Facebook page. Full details and copies of all relevant documents can be obtained by contacting [specified solicitors with contact details]. If you do not file a defence to these proceedings within 28 days of service, the Court may enter judgment against you without any further notice to you. 2012 年 4 月 13 日星期五，Mothership Music Pty Ltd 在澳大利亚新南威尔士州地方法院对您提起诉讼，就您未出席 2011 年 10 月 22 日在 The Foreshore Newcastle 的 Camp Shortland 举行的‘Fat as Butter’音乐会而寻求违约赔偿。此外，法院命令您不得将您在澳大利亚的资产减少至 $80,000\$ 80,000 以下，并作出了其他辅助性命令。这些命令于今日续期，同时法院裁定可通过您的 Facebook 页面发送此消息对您进行送达。所有相关文件的完整详情及副本可通过联系[指定律师及其联系方式]获取。若您在送达后 28 天内未就本诉讼提交答辩，法院可能在无需另行通知的情况下对您作出缺席判决。
The District Court’s territorial jurisdiction 地区法院的属地管辖权
[17] The District Court is an inferior court of limited jurisdiction which is defined by statute (Falls Creek Ski Lifts Pty Ltd v Yee (1995) 37 NSWLR 344 at 345-349 per Gleeson CJ, with whom Rolfe AJA agreed). As a result, common law principles concerning the jurisdiction of superior courts, which have inherent as well as statutory jurisdiction, are of little, if any, relevance in determining whether the District Court has jurisdiction in particular cases. [17] 地区法院是一个管辖权有限的下级法院，其管辖权由法规界定（参见 Falls Creek Ski Lifts Pty Ltd v Yee (1995) 37 NSWLR 344 案第 345-349 页，Gleeson CJ 主笔，Rolfe AJA 赞同）。因此，在判定地区法院对特定案件是否具有管辖权时，关于具有固有及法定管辖权的高级法院的普通法原则几乎（即便有）不具相关性。
[18] Section 44 of the District Court Act 1973 identifies the subject matter of actions over which the District Court is to have jurisdiction. Section 47 identifies the necessary territorial connection. [18] 《1973 年地区法院法》第 44 条明确了地区法院拥有管辖权的诉讼事项。第 47 条则规定了必要的属地关联要求。
[19] The existence of a sufficient territorial connection under s 47 depends on due service. This is defined as service of the initiating process on the defendant “by or under this Act” or in accordance [19] 根据第 47 条，是否存在足够的领土联系取决于适当的送达。这被定义为“根据本法”或按照……对被告的初始程序送达。
Flo Rida v Mothership Music cont. Flo Rida 诉 Mothership Music 案（续）
with the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) (“SEPA”). The latter Act permits service elsewhere in Australia than New South Wales, but not outside Australia. 根据 1992 年《服务与执行程序法》（联邦）（简称“SEPA”）。后一项法案允许在澳大利亚境内除新南威尔士州以外的其他地方进行送达，但不适用于澳大利亚境外。
[20] [T]he reference to service “by or under this Act” includes service in accordance with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (“UCPR”). [20] 提及“根据本法或依本法”进行的送达包括依照《统一民事诉讼规则》（“UCPR”）进行的送达。
[28] Personal service on the defendant is the primary means of service for which Part 10 of the UCPR provides. That did not occur in relation to Flo Rida. The question then is whether UCPR r 10.14 permitted the making of an order for substituted service on him, that is, service other than by personal service. Unless the primary judge’s order for substituted service was properly made and overcame the apparent lack of jurisdiction to proceed with the action against Flo Rida, the appeal must succeed and the primary judgment for damages set aside. [28] 对被告的个人送达是《统一民事诉讼规则》（UCPR）第 10 部分规定的主要送达方式。但这一程序未在 Flo Rida 案中实施。因此问题在于 UCPR 第 10.14 条是否允许作出替代送达命令，即采用非个人送达方式。除非初审法官作出的替代送达命令合法有效，并解决了对 Flo Rida 提起诉讼明显缺乏管辖权的问题，否则上诉必须成立，关于损害赔偿的初审判决应予以撤销。
The order for substituted service 替代送达的命令
[29] The factual circumstances in relation to which the making of the order for substituted service needs to be considered are as follows. According to the evidence, Flo Rida was in New South Wales on 12 April 2012 and in Victoria on 14 April 2012, and was likely to be returning to the United States on or soon after 19 April 2012 (see [6] and [10] above). The evidence thus suggested that Flo Rida was in Australia when the order for substituted service was made on 18 April 2012 but did not show whether he was then in New South Wales or elsewhere in Australia. However, the latter is not of present significance as, whilst in Australia but outside New South Wales, he could have been personally served with the District Court Statement of Claim under the provisions of the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992. [29] 需要考虑作出替代送达命令的相关事实情况如下。根据证据，Flo Rida 于 2012 年 4 月 12 日在新南威尔士州，2012 年 4 月 14 日在维多利亚州，并可能在 2012 年 4 月 19 日或之后不久返回美国（见上文[6]和[10]）。因此，证据表明，Flo Rida 在 2012 年 4 月 18 日作出替代送达命令时在澳大利亚，但没有显示他当时是在新南威尔士州还是澳大利亚其他地方。然而，后者目前并不重要，因为当他在澳大利亚但不在新南威尔士州时，可以根据《1992 年送达和执行程序法》的规定亲自向他送达地区法院的索赔声明。
[30] UCPR r 10.14, which is contained in Part 10 of the UCPR and therefore applicable in the District Court, relevantly provides as follows: [provisions of UCPR r. 10.14 recited]. [30] 《统一民事诉讼规则》（UCPR）第 10 部分所包含的第 10.14 条规则，因此适用于地区法院，其相关规定如下：[此处引述 UCPR 第 10.14 条规则的具体条款]。
[31] It is convenient to consider first whether an order for substituted service under this rule could properly have been made if the evidence had indicated that Flo Rida had departed Australia before the order was made. In my view this would not have been a proper use of the power conferred by r 10.14. The legislature, acting through the Uniform Rules Committee, has refrained from giving jurisdiction to the District Court based on personal service of its process outside Australia and, in respect of the Supreme Court, has carefully confined the circumstances in which jurisdiction so based may be exercised. It would be a subversion of the policy underlying these provisions to permit avoidance by the simple device of a substituted service order. [31] 首先考虑如果证据表明 Flo Rida 在命令作出前已离开澳大利亚，根据本规则作出的替代送达命令是否适当是便利的。在我看来，这不会是对规则 10.14 所赋予权力的正当使用。立法机关通过统一规则委员会行事，并未赋予地区法院基于在澳大利亚境外对其程序进行个人送达的管辖权，并且对于最高法院，已仔细限制了基于此种送达行使管辖权的情形。允许通过简单的替代送达命令手段来规避这些规定，将是对这些条款背后政策的破坏。
[32] This conclusion derives support from the decision of Austin J in ASIC v Sweeney (No 2) [2001] NSWSC 477; 38 ACSR 743. It is unnecessary to repeat his Honour’s helpful analysis of the authorities, including Laurie v Carroll [1958] HCA 4; 98 CLR 310. It is sufficient to note that in holding that there could not be substituted service of a writ issued out of the Supreme Court of Victoria, a superior court of record, if the writ could not be served personally at the time it was issued, the High Court in Laurie vv Carroll observed: “Were it otherwise the strict conditions regulating and limiting service out of the jurisdiction upon defendants abroad would be ineffective; for they could be avoided by obtaining an order for substituted service within the jurisdiction” (at 325). In other words, “want of jurisdiction cannot be overcome by an order for substituted service” (ibid at 332). [32] 这一结论可从 Austin 法官在 ASIC 诉 Sweeney（第 2 号）案[2001] NSWSC 477; 38 ACSR 743 中的判决获得支持。无需重复他对包括 Laurie 诉 Carroll 案[1958] HCA 4; 98 CLR 310 在内的权威判例的有益分析。只需注意到，高等法院在 Laurie 诉 Carroll 案中裁定：若维多利亚最高法院（作为记录在案的高等法院）签发的令状在签发时无法亲自送达，则不得采用替代送达方式。法院指出："若非如此，针对境外被告的严格管辖权限制条件将形同虚设；当事人只需获取境内替代送达命令即可规避这些限制"（第 325 页）。换言之，"管辖权缺失无法通过替代送达命令来弥补"（同前，第 332 页）。
[33] Rogers CJ Comm D’s observation in Arhill Pty Ltd vv General Terminal Company Pty Ltd (1990) 23 NSWLR 545 at 551 that “a foreigner, resident abroad, will not lightly be subjected to a local jurisdiction” accorded with this approach. His Honour referred in this context to Siskina v Distos Compania Naviera S.A. [1979] AC 210 in which at 254-255 Lord Diplock described the jurisdiction of local courts over foreigners as “exorbitant” jurisdictions, running “counter to the normal rules of comity among civilised nations”, and said that any rules that allow foreign service, and that therefore create an exception to jurisdiction being territorial, should be construed strictly in “favour of the foreigner”. [33] Rogers CJ 在 Arhill Pty Ltd 诉 General Terminal Company Pty Ltd 案（1990 年 23 NSWLR 545，第 551 页）中的意见，即“居住在外国的外国人不会轻易受当地司法管辖”，与此方法一致。阁下在此背景下提及了 Siskina 诉 Distos Compania Naviera S.A.案[1979] AC 210，其中在第 254-255 页，Diplock 勋爵将地方法院对外国人的管辖权描述为“过度的”管辖权，与“文明国家间正常的礼让规则”相悖，并指出任何允许境外送达从而对属地管辖权构成例外的规则，都应严格解释以“有利于外国人”。
Flo Rida v Mothership Music cont. Flo Rida 诉 Mothership Music 案（续）
[34] The decision of McClellan C] in Filipowski v Frey [2005] NSWLEC 166 is not inconsistent with my conclusion. Unlike the present case, that case was concerned with the making of an order for substituted service by a superior court of record, the Land and Environment Court, and with a situation in which the defendant, as his Honour found, was within the jurisdiction when proceedings were commenced because he had voluntarily submitted to it (at [22]). [34] McClellan C] 在 Filipowski 诉 Frey [2005] NSWLEC 166 案中的裁决与我的结论并不矛盾。与本案不同，该案涉及的是由上级记录法院——土地与环境法院——作出的替代送达命令，以及正如法官阁下所认定的，被告在诉讼开始时因自愿接受管辖而处于该法院管辖范围内的情况（见[22]段）。
[35] My conclusion referred to in [31] above is also supported by the text of r 10.14r 10.14 which refers to a document which “cannot practicably be served on a person” or “cannot practicably be served on a person in the manner provided by law”. Both these alternatives contemplate the existence of a practical difficulty in service. They do not embrace a situation where the relevant document cannot lawfully be served on the defendant because he is outside Australia. [35] 我在上文[31]段中提到的结论也得到了 r 10.14r 10.14 文本的支持，该文本提到“无法实际送达某人”或“无法以法律规定的方式实际送达某人”的文件。这两种情况都考虑到了送达过程中存在的实际困难。它们并不包括因被告在澳大利亚境外而无法合法送达相关文件的情形。
[36] However, as Austin J recognised in ASIC v Sweeney, an order for substituted service may, depending upon the circumstances, be made in respect of a defendant who is overseas if personal service on that defendant whilst overseas would be permissible, for example where service of a Supreme Court Statement of Claim could be effected in accordance with Part 11 of the UCPR. (As I have noted earlier, Part 11 is not applicable to the District Court.) Similarly, it may, depending on the circumstances, be appropriate to make a substituted service order in respect of a defendant who is outside New South Wales but may be served elsewhere in Australia under the Service and Execution of Process Act. [36] 然而，正如 Austin J 在 ASIC 诉 Sweeney 案中所确认的，根据具体情况，可对海外被告作出替代送达命令，前提是该被告在海外时能够被合法送达，例如依据《统一民事诉讼规则》（UCPR）第 11 部分规定可有效送达最高法院的起诉状。（如前所述，第 11 部分不适用于地区法院。）同样，视情况而定，对于不在新南威尔士州但可根据《送达与执行程序法》在澳大利亚其他地区被送达的被告，作出替代送达命令也可能是适当的。
[37] Returning to the present case, the question is whether the order for substituted service was properly made on 18 April 2012 when the evidence suggested that Flo Rida was leaving Australia on the next day or soon thereafter. In my view the order ought not to have been made in the absence of evidence that the means of substituted service sanctioned by the order were likely to bring service of the statement of claim to Flo Rida’s attention whilst he was in Australia. Due to the apparent proximity of his departure, there was no basis in the evidence for any confidence that that would occur. In the absence of that confidence, the effect of the order was tantamount to ordering substituted service on a defendant who was overseas and not lawfully able to be personally served overseas. As I have indicated, it is not permissible to make an order for substituted service in those circumstances. It is unnecessary to consider in the present case whether the position would have been different if the evidence had indicated, which it did not, that Flo Rida had left, or intended to leave, Australia for the purpose of evading service. [37] 回到本案，问题在于 2012 年 4 月 18 日作出的替代送达命令是否恰当，因为证据表明 Flo Rida 将于次日或此后不久离开澳大利亚。在我看来，在没有证据表明该命令批准的替代送达方式有可能在 Flo Rida 仍在澳大利亚期间将起诉状送达至其本人知悉的情况下，该命令本不应作出。鉴于其离境时间显然迫近，证据中没有任何依据可以确信这种情况会发生。缺乏这种确信的情况下，该命令的效果等同于对一名身处海外且无法在海外合法进行个人送达的被告作出替代送达命令。正如我所指出的，在此类情况下作出替代送达命令是不被允许的。本案中无需考虑，如果证据显示（但实际并未显示）Flo Rida 已经离开或意图离开澳大利亚以逃避送达，情况是否会有所不同。
[38] I should add in conclusion that in my view the evidence before the primary judge did not in any event constitute a sufficient basis for the making of the substituted service order insofar as that order provided for notice to be given to Flo Rida by means of Facebook. The evidence … did not establish, other than by mere assertion, that the Facebook page was in fact that of Flo Rida and did not prove that a posting on it was likely to come to his attention in a timely fashion (see Chappell vv Coyle [1985] 2 NSWLR 73 at 77). [38] 最后，我应当补充说明，就替代送达令规定通过 Facebook 向 Flo Rida 发送通知而言，我认为初审法官面前的证据无论如何都不构成作出该命令的充分依据。该证据……除了单纯的断言外，并未证实该 Facebook 页面确属 Flo Rida 所有，也未证明发布于其上的内容能及时引起他的注意（参见 Chappell vv Coyle [1985] 2 NSWLR 73 at 77）。
[39] Similarly, the order was defective insofar as it related to substituted service by email as the intended recipients of the emails were not identified in the order. [39] 同样，该命令在涉及通过电子邮件进行替代送达方面存在缺陷，因为命令中未明确指明电子邮件的预期收件人。
[11.230] The court will make an order for substituted service of an originating process if it is satisfied that the method of substituted service sought (or in the case below already performed) by the applicant/plaintiff is one which will in all reasonable probability be effective in bringing the proceedings to the knowledge of the defendant. [11.230] 如果法院确信申请人/原告所寻求（或在以下情况下已经执行）的替代送达方法在所有合理可能性上都能有效地使被告知悉诉讼程序，法院将作出替代送达原诉文件的命令。
Bulldogs Rugby League Club v Williams Bulldogs Rugby League Club 对阵 Williams
[11.240] Bulldogs Rugby League Club Ltd v Williams [2008] NSWSC 822 [11.240] Bulldogs Rugby League Club Ltd 诉 Williams 案 [2008] NSWSC 822
[Sonny Bill Williams was alleged to have breached his contract to play Rugby League for the Bulldogs Rugby League Club Ltd when he left Australia to play Rugby Union for a club in France. Bulldogs Rugby League Club Ltd and the National Rugby League Limited (NRL) commenced proceedings by way of summons against Williams in the Supreme Court of NSW. The summons proved difficult to serve personally on Sonny Bill Williams. Mr O’Reilly was the solicitor acting for the NRL.] 桑尼·比尔·威廉姆斯被指控违反了他与 Bulldogs Rugby League Club Ltd 签订的橄榄球联盟比赛合同，当时他离开澳大利亚前往法国为一家俱乐部参加橄榄球联盟比赛。Bulldogs Rugby League Club Ltd 和 National Rugby League Limited（NRL）通过传票在新南威尔士州最高法院对威廉姆斯提起诉讼。传票很难亲自送达桑尼·比尔·威廉姆斯。奥莱利先生是 NRL 的代理律师。
AUSTIN J
[3] There are two applications before the Court today. The first is an application by the plaintiffs, filed by leave in court today, for an order under Part 10 rule 14(2) and (3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules that service of the amended summons, notice of motion of 5 August and affidavits be taken to have been served on the first defendant by 8am on 6 August 2008 (Sydney time), … [3] 今日法庭有两项申请。第一项是原告提出的申请，今日经法庭许可提交，请求根据《统一民事诉讼规则》第 10 部分第 14(2)和(3)条规定作出命令：经修订的传票、8 月 5 日的动议通知书及宣誓书应视为已于 2008 年 8 月 6 日上午 8 点（悉尼时间）送达第一被告，……
Service of process 送达法律文书
[19] The first issue for consideration is whether to make orders of a curative kind concerning the service of process and affidavits on the first and second defendants. When this matter was first before me I made orders for abridgement of service in circumstances said to be urgent, and brought the matter back before the Court on 5 August. An application was made on 28 July for orders for substituted service, but it was denied and so the plaintiffs attempted to effect personal service on the first defendant, who had left Australia on 26 July. [19] 首要审议事项是针对第一及第二被告的诉讼文书与宣誓书送达是否作出补救性命令。本案初次提交时，鉴于所述紧急情况，本人已作出缩短送达期限的命令，并将案件排期至 8 月 5 日再审。原告方曾于 7 月 28 日申请替代送达命令，但未获批准，故转而尝试对第一被告实施直接送达，而该被告已于 7 月 26 日离境澳大利亚。
[20] On 5 August I was informed that those attempts at personal service - which were detailed at some length, particularly in Mr O’Reilly’s affidavit of 5 August - had been unsuccessful. I was persuaded that it was appropriate at that stage to make orders for substituted service. I made orders for substituted service on the first defendant. I made orders requiring that substituted service be effected by taking several steps, namely service of copies of the documents at five addresses of the Toulon Rugby Club, leaving copies at the address of the first defendant’s property in suburban Sydney, leaving copies at the registered office of his company and sending text messages to what appeared to be his mobile phone number and the mobile phone number of Mr Nasser. [20] 8 月 5 日，我获悉那些亲自送达的尝试——这些尝试在奥赖利先生 8 月 5 日的宣誓书中得到了详细说明——均未成功。我被说服认为，在那一阶段作出替代送达的命令是适当的。我针对第一被告作出了替代送达的命令。我要求通过采取几个步骤来完成替代送达，即在土伦橄榄球俱乐部的五个地址送达文件副本，将副本留在第一被告位于悉尼郊区的房产地址，将副本留在他公司的注册办公室，并向看似是他的手机号码以及纳赛尔先生的手机号码发送短信。
[21] Mr O’Reilly’s affidavit dated today indicates that this method of substituted service was substantially implemented, but not entirely. My understanding is that everything was done, except that of the five addresses for the Toulon Rugby Club, service of the documents at two of those addresses (addresses at football stadiums) was not effected within the time specified by my orders, and service at a post office box address was not effected quite as directed. [21] 奥莱利先生今日提交的宣誓书表明，这种替代送达方式已基本实施，但并未完全执行。据我理解，除涉及土伦橄榄球俱乐部的五个地址中有两处（足球场地址）未在我规定的时限内完成文件送达，以及一处邮政信箱地址未完全按指示送达外，其余事项均已落实。
[22] So far as the latter is concerned, the documents were posted at the post office connected to that post office box, rather than being left at the post office box, because the process server found that the post office box, which was in the street, was locked. Posting the documents from inside the adjacent post office was sensible in the circumstances. [22] 就后者而言，文件被投递在与该邮政信箱相连的邮局内，而非直接留在信箱中，因为送达人员发现位于街边的信箱已上锁。在此情况下，从相邻邮局内部投递文件是合理的做法。
[23] So far as the stadiums are concerned, Mr O’Reilly’s evidence, on information and belief, is that the process server attended the two addresses on Tuesday 5 August 2008 Toulon time, but found that the clubhouses at the stadiums were locked and had no letterbox. Rather than leave the documents on a public footpath, the process server left the premises and returned to both clubhouses on the next day, Wednesday 6 August. He found that one of the clubhouses was open on that day, and he handed the documents to the manager of the clubhouse, who said that he would provide the documents to the director of Rugby Club Toulonnais. That was after 8am Sydney time, but it was still on Wednesday 6 August. [23] 就体育场而言，O’Reilly 先生根据所知所信提供的证据是，送达员于 2008 年 8 月 5 日星期二（土伦时间）前往了这两个地址，但发现体育场的俱乐部会所已上锁且没有信箱。送达员并未将文件留在公共人行道上，而是离开了现场，并于次日（8 月 6 日星期三）再次前往两家俱乐部会所。他发现其中一家会所当天开放，便将文件交给了会所经理，经理表示会将文件转交给 Rugby Club Toulonnais 的负责人。此时悉尼时间已过上午 8 点，但仍是 8 月 6 日星期三。
Bulldogs Rugby League Clubv Williams cont.
[24] Something else of significance happened, namely that in addition to substantial compliance with the requirements for substituted service on the first defendant, it appears that eventually personal service was effected on him. Mr O’Reilly’s evidence, on information and belief, is that the process server attended the training ground of Toulon Rugby Club with copies of a letter to the first defendant and sealed documents on 7 August, and observed the defendant training with the Toulon Rugby Team. [24] 还发生了另一件重要的事情，即除了基本符合对第一被告进行替代送达的要求外，似乎最终还对他进行了直接送达。根据奥莱利先生基于所知所信提供的证词，送达人员于 8 月 7 日携带了给第一被告的信件副本和密封文件前往土伦橄榄球俱乐部的训练场，并观察到被告与土伦橄榄球队一起训练。
[25] The process server went onto the training pitch and called out for the first defendant that he had documents for him. He threw the documents in the direction of the first defendant. The documents were picked up by a trainer of the Toulon Rugby Team who handed them to the first defendant, and in doing so said, “Williams, c’est pour toi”. It seems to me that those events constitute personal service. [25] 传票送达员走进训练场，高声呼唤第一被告，表示有文件要交给他。他将文件朝第一被告的方向扔去。这些文件被土伦橄榄球队的一名教练捡起，教练将文件递交给第一被告时说道：“威廉姆斯，这是给你的”。在我看来，这些行为构成了当面送达。
[26] I am satisfied, in all the circumstances, that the documents that are the subject of the orders for substituted service have been adequately brought to the attention of the first defendant, and therefore I will make the “curative” order sought. The orders for substituted service were substantially complied with by the required time of 8 am on Wednesday 6 August. [26] 综合所有情况，我确信替代送达命令所涉文件已充分引起第一被告的注意，因此我将作出所请求的“补救性”命令。替代送达的命令在 8 月 6 日星期三上午 8 点的规定时间内得到了实质性的遵守。
[11.250] In Nash vv Stewart (extracted below), Barrett J held that an order for substituted service could not be made in respect of personal service of a subpoena to give evidence. [11.250] 在 Nash vv Stewart 案（摘录如下）中，Barrett J 法官认为，对于要求出庭作证的传票进行个人送达时，不能作出替代送达的命令。
Nash v Stewart Nash 诉 Stewart
[11.260] Nash v Stewart [2010] NSWSC 513
BARRETT J
[1] These proceedings are listed for hearing commencing on 26 May 2010. [1] 这些诉讼程序定于 2010 年 5 月 26 日开始审理。
[2] The first, second, fifth and sixth defendants seek an order for substituted service in relation to a subpoena requiring the attendance at the hearing of a person whose affidavit they wish to read in their case. They are obviously apprehensive that the person’s non-attendance and the consequent inability to make him available for cross-examination may result in a situation where the affidavit cannot be relied on. [2] 第一、第二、第五及第六被告申请就一份要求某人出席聆讯的传票作出替代送达命令，他们希望在该案中引用该人的誓章。他们显然担心，若该人不出席聆讯，因而无法接受盘问，可能导致誓章无法被采信的情况。
[3] I am not confident that the court can, consistently with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, make an order for substituted service in respect of a subpoena requiring a person to attend to give evidence. [3] 我不确定法院能否在符合《2005 年统一民事诉讼规则》的情况下，就要求某人出庭作证的传票作出替代送达命令。
[4] The rule concerning service of subpoenas is within Part 33. Rule 33.5(1) says: [4] 关于传票送达的规则包含在第 33 部分中。规则 33.5(1)规定：
A subpoena must be served personally on the addressee. 传票必须亲自送达收件人。
[5] The words “must be served personally” - and particularly “must” - indicate, to my mind, that the only permitted mode of service of a subpoena is “personal service” as provided for in Division 3 of Part 10 of the rules. Division 3 of Part 10 is headed “Personal Service”. [5] 在我看来，“必须亲自送达”这几个字——尤其是“必须”——表明，传票的唯一允许送达方式是规则第 10 部分第 3 节规定的“亲自送达”。第 10 部分的第 3 节标题为“亲自送达”。
[6] Within Division 3 of Part 10, rule 10.20(1) makes it clear that personal service is compulsory, not optional, in cases where the rules require it. Rule 10.20(1) is as follows: [6] 在第 10 部分第 3 分部中，规则 10.20(1)明确指出，在规则要求的情况下，个人送达是强制性的，而非可选的。规则 10.20(1)内容如下：
Any document required or permitted to be served on a person in any proceedings may be personally served, but need not be personally served unless these rules so require or the court so orders. 在任何诉讼程序中，要求或允许向某人送达的任何文件均可亲自送达，但除非本规则有此要求或法院有此命令，否则无需亲自送达。
Nash v Stewart cont. Nash v Stewart 续
[7] Thus, where the rules require personal service, the relevant document “needs” to be served personally. [7] 因此，在规则要求个人送达的情况下，相关文件“必须”亲自送达。
[8] Also within Division 3 of Part 10, rule 10.21(1) then states the general method of effecting personal service on a person: [8] 同样在第十部分第 3 分部中，规则 10.21(1)随后规定了向个人送达文书的一般方法：
Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth)). Under those provisions, the condition is that conduct money has been “paid or tendered”. 《1992 年联邦程序执行法》规定，条件为行为费用已“支付或提供”。
[17] A quite different dimension is added by the word “handed”, as distinct from “paid”, in the provision with which I am now concerned. The words “handed or tendered to”, read together, connote the placing of money into the person’s hand or offering it in such a way that the person may take it if he or she chooses to do so. [17] 在我当前所关注的条款中，“handed”（递交）一词与“paid”（支付）截然不同，这增添了一个截然不同的维度。“handed or tendered to”（递交或呈交）这两个词连在一起使用时，意味着将钱款放入某人手中，或以某种方式提供，使得该人可以选择是否接受。
[18] Mr Carroll of counsel referred to Sleiman v Afeich [2005] NSWSC 992 where Hamilton J said, without discussion or analysis, that earlier orders made by another judge with respect to a subpoena “may be characterised as either orders for substituted service within rule 10.4 of the UCPR, or as orders dispensing with a requirement of the rules of court on a specified condition pursuant to section 14 of the CPA”. It is clear, I think, that Hamilton J intended to refer to rule 10.14, not rule 10.4, and I read his Honour’s observations in that light. However, as I have said, there is no discussion or analysis in that case which, in any event, did no more than speculate upon possible bases on which earlier orders may have been made. [18] Carroll 先生律师提到 Sleiman 诉 Afeich [2005] NSWSC 992 案，其中 Hamilton 法官未经讨论或分析即表示，另一法官先前就传票作出的命令“可定性为符合 UCPR 第 10.4 条规定的替代送达命令，或依据 CPA 第 14 条免除特定法庭规则要求的附条件命令”。我认为 Hamilton 法官显然本意是指第 10.14 条而非第 10.4 条，并据此解读其观点。但如前所述，该案未进行任何讨论或分析，且无论如何仅推测了先前命令可能作出的几种依据。
[19] In relation to the first possible basis, I am, for the reasons I have stated, not persuaded that, as a matter of construction, rule 10.14 is applicable in a case to which rule 33.5(1)33.5(1) applies. Another example of the expression of strong reservations as to whether substituted service could be ordered where the rules require personal service is found in In the Estate of Johanson (unreported, NSWSC, Powell J, 28 August 1992), which concerned a citation to take probate in respect of which a requirement of personal service applied. [19] 关于第一种可能的基础，基于我已陈述的理由，我不认为在解释上规则 10.14 适用于规则 33.5(1)33.5(1) 所适用的案件。另一个对在规则要求亲自送达的情况下是否可以命令替代送达表示强烈保留意见的例子见于 In the Estate of Johanson 案（未报告，新南威尔士州最高法院，Powell 法官，1992 年 8 月 28 日），该案涉及一项要求亲自送达的遗嘱认证传票。
[20] As to the possibility of dispensing with the rules of court pursuant to s 14 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, it must be acknowledged that the s 14 power is a broad one and, as counsel pointed out, must, in the light of s 57 and s 58, be exercised so as to promote the objectives stated in s 56. [20] 关于根据《2005 年民事诉讼法》第 14 条免除法院规则的可能性，必须承认第 14 条赋予的权力是广泛的，并且如律师所指出的，鉴于第 57 条和第 58 条的规定，行使该权力时必须促进第 56 条所述的目标。
[21] But a subpoena to attend to give evidence is something that carries penal consequences in case of disobedience. Someone who does not attend can be arrested and may be punished for contempt. That, I have no doubt, is why personal service is required, and why no clear method (or, as I think is probably the case, no method at all) is provided for allowing some remoter and less secure method of notification. Penal consequences should not be triggered by any such remoter and less secure method. [21] 但传唤出庭作证的传票若遭违抗将导致刑事后果。未出庭者可能被逮捕并因藐视法庭受惩处。我毫不怀疑，这正是为何要求亲自送达，以及为何未明确规定（或据我所想更可能是根本未规定）允许采用更间接且安全性较低的告知方式。刑事后果不应由任何此类更间接且安全性较低的方式触发。
[22] In any event, the only power the court has under s 14 of the Civil Procedure Act is a power to “dispense with any requirement of the rules of court”. It is by no means clear how this would justify not only putting to one side the requirement of personal service but also sanctioning as valid and effective some alternative method of notification as a potential basis for arrest and committal. Section 14 does not allow the court to re-write the rules of court. [22] 无论如何，根据《民事诉讼法》第 14 条，法院唯一拥有的权力是“免除遵守任何法庭规则的要求”。这显然无法解释为何不仅能搁置亲自送达的要求，还能批准某种替代通知方式作为逮捕和监禁的潜在依据并视其为有效。第 14 条并未授权法院重写法庭规则。
[23] I am not prepared to make an order for substituted service as sought by the applicants. [23] 我不准备按照申请人的要求作出替代送达的命令。
&ocr
Confirmation of informal service 非正式服务确认
[11.270] An application for confirmation of informal service is made retrospectively. If despite service being effected it did not comply with the rules of court and the proceedings have nevertheless been brought to the attention of the person served, an application for an order can be made that the defendant has been taken to be served on a date specified by the court. Satisfying the court that the defendant has been accorded procedural fairness and that the proceedings have in fact been brought to his or her attention is very important. [11.270] 确认非正式送达的申请可事后提出。若尽管已完成送达但不符合法院规则，而诉讼程序已实际为被送达人所知悉，则可申请法院命令，指定某一日期视为被告已获送达。至关重要的是，需向法院证明被告已获得程序公正对待且诉讼程序确已为其所知悉。
Waiver of objection to service 放弃对送达的异议
[11.280] As r 10.19 makes clear, taking responsive action following receipt of documents alleged to have been served will constitute a waiver of objections to service having been properly effected. Therefore, it is important that any objection to service be made in lieu of taking substantive part in proceedings. [11.280] 正如规则 10.19 所明确指出的，在收到声称已送达的文件后采取回应行动，将构成对送达已适当完成的异议的放弃。因此，重要的是，任何对送达的异议应在代替实质性参与诉讼程序时提出。
10.19 Waiver of objection to service 10.19 对送达的异议的放弃
(cf DCR Part 8, rule 5(3)) （参见 DCR 第 8 部分，规则 5(3)）
A party who files a document in reply to a document alleged to have been served on that party is taken to have waived any objection to the fact or manner of service unless he or she files and serves notice of the objection together with the document so filed. 对声称已向其送达文件的文件提出答复的一方，如未在提交该答复文件时一并提交并送达异议通知，则视为放弃对送达事实或方式的任何异议。
Service beyond the jurisdiction 超越管辖范围的服务
[11.300] In the absence of statutory authority, the originating process at common law must be served within the boundaries of the court’s jurisdiction. This would mean that a New South Wales originating process could not be served outside New South Wales or outside Australia. Statute law has provided the means to overcome such impediments. [11.300] 在没有法定授权的情况下，普通法中的初始程序必须在法院管辖范围内送达。这意味着新南威尔士州的初始程序无法在新南威尔士州以外或澳大利亚境外送达。成文法已提供了克服此类障碍的手段。
Service outside New South Wales but within Australia 新南威尔士州以外但在澳大利亚境内的服务
[11.310] Service within Australia but outside New South Wales is effected in accordance with the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) (SEPA) or the UCPR. Service of originating process in Supreme Court proceedings is to be effected in accordance with either UCPR r 10.3 (Service of originating process in Australia) or SEPA ss 13-16. Persons who are then joined as a party may seek to have the proceedings transferred under the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) to the Supreme Court of another State or Territory (or the Federal Court or Family Court if appropriate). [11.310] 在澳大利亚境内但新南威尔士州以外的送达，依照《1992 年联邦服务与程序执行法》（SEPA）或《统一民事诉讼规则》（UCPR）进行。最高法院诉讼中初始程序的送达应依据 UCPR 第 10.3 条（澳大利亚境内初始程序的送达）或 SEPA 第 13-16 节执行。随后被追加为当事人的个人可根据《1987 年联邦法院管辖权（交叉授权）法》，申请将诉讼转移至另一州或领地的最高法院（或视情况移交联邦法院或家事法院）。
Rule 10.3 requires that a party endorse on the originating process a statement as to whether it intends to proceed under the UCPR or SEPA. Interstate service has customarily been effected through SEPA because the UCPR does not address such service in explicit terms. No prior leave of the court is required for SEPA service. The SEPA endorsement on originating process documents should attach the “Notice to the Defendant” in accordance with the SEPA Form 1. Service of originating process in civil proceedings is dealt with in Div 1 of Pt 2 of the Act, while service of subpoenas is under Pt 3. Service of other documents may be effected in accordance with any applicable rules of court. 规则 10.3 要求一方在起始程序文件上签署声明，表明其打算根据《统一民事诉讼规则》（UCPR）还是《服务与执行程序法案》（SEPA）进行诉讼。跨州服务传统上通过 SEPA 执行，因为 UCPR 未以明确条款规定此类服务。SEPA 服务无需事先获得法院许可。起始程序文件上的 SEPA 背书应按照 SEPA 表格 1 附上“被告通知书”。民事诉讼中起始程序文件的服务由该法第 2 部分第 1 分部规定，而传票的服务则由第 3 部分规定。其他文件的服务可根据任何适用的法院规则执行。
Service for proceedings in courts other than the Supreme Court is governed by SEPA. A person served with an originating process under that Act may apply to the court that issued the process for an order staying the proceedings. This is on the ground that a court of another State has jurisdiction to determine all the matters in issue between the parties and is the appropriate court to determine those matters: s 20(3). SEPA s 20(4) sets out the matters the court is to take into account in such an application, including the places of residence of the 除最高法院外的其他法院诉讼程序服务由《SEPA》管辖。根据该法被送达原诉程序的一方，可向签发程序的法院申请中止诉讼的命令。其理由是另一州的法院拥有管辖权以裁定当事人之间所有争议事项，并且是裁定这些事项的适当法院：第 20(3)条。《SEPA》第 20(4)条规定了法院在此类申请中应考虑的事项，包括当事人的居住地等。
parties and of the witnesses likely to be called in the proceedings; the place where the subject matter of the proceedings is situated; the financial circumstances of the parties; any agreement between the parties about the court or place in which the proceedings should be instituted; the law that would be most appropriate to apply in the proceedings; and whether a related or similar proceeding has been commenced against the person served or another person. However, the fact that the proceeding was commenced in the place of issue is specifically not to be taken into account. To avoid delay or undue expense, the court may impose conditions on the orders as it considers “just and appropriate”: s 20(5). Section 21 provides that a court of a State or Territory (other than the place of issue) must not restrain a party from taking a step in such proceedings on the ground that the place of issue is not the appropriate forum for the proceedings. 诉讼中可能传唤的当事人及证人；诉讼标的物所在地；当事人的财务状况；当事人之间关于诉讼应在哪个法院或地点提起的任何协议；诉讼中最适宜适用的法律；以及是否已针对被送达人或其他人提起相关或类似诉讼。然而，诉讼在签发地提起这一事实明确不应被纳入考量。为避免拖延或过度费用，法院可施加其认为“公正且适当”的条件于相关命令中：第 20(5)条。第 21 条规定，州或领地法院（签发地除外）不得以签发地非适宜诉讼地为由，阻止当事人在此类诉讼中采取步骤。
Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) 《1992 年联邦服务与程序执行法》
[11.320] Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) s 20 [11.320] 《1992 年送达与执行程序法》（联邦）第 20 条
Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) cont. 《1992 年服务与程序执行法》（联邦）续
(9) This section does not affect the court’s power to stay a proceeding on a ground other than the ground mentioned in subsection (3). (9) 本条不影响法院基于第(3)款所述理由之外的其他理由中止诉讼程序的权力。
(10) This section does not affect the operation of: (10) 本节不影响以下内容的运作：
(a) the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987; or (a) 《1987 年法院管辖权（交叉授权）法》；或
(b) a corresponding law of a State. (b) 某州对应的法律。 qquad\qquad
Service under UCPR r 10.6 根据《统一民事诉讼规则》第 10.6 条提供的服务
[11.330] As discussed at [11.150], the UCPR provides for the service, in any proceedings, by one party on another (whether in New South Wales or elsewhere) of any document (including originating process) in accordance with any agreement, acknowledgement or undertaking by which the party to be served is bound: r 10.6. Rule 10.6 is set out at [11.160]. [11.330] 如[11.150]所述，《统一民事诉讼规则》(UCPR)规定，在任何诉讼程序中，一方当事人可依据另一方当事人（无论其位于新南威尔士州或其他地区）受约束的协议、确认书或承诺书，向其送达任何文件（包括初始程序）：参见第 10.6 条。第 10.6 条内容详见[11.160]。
Service outside Australia under UCPR Pts 11 and 11 A 根据《统一民事诉讼规则》（UCPR）第 11 部分和第 11A 部分在澳大利亚境外提供的服务
[11.340] Service of documents outside Australia is governed by Pts 11 and 11A of the UCPR. Part 11, which applies to Supreme Court proceedings, includes service by private means (Div 1), in accordance with “harmonised rules” (Div 1A), and through diplomatic channels (Div 2). Part 11A provides for the service of judicial documents outside of Australia under the Hague Convention (on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters) and covers service abroad of local judicial documents (Div 2), default judgment following service abroad of initiating process (Div 3) and local service of foreign judicial documents (Div 4). [11.340] 在澳大利亚境外送达文件受《统一民事诉讼规则》(UCPR)第 11 及 11A 部分管辖。适用于最高法院诉讼程序的第 11 部分包括通过私人方式送达（第 1 分部）、依据“统一规则”送达（第 1A 分部）以及通过外交渠道送达（第 2 分部）。第 11A 部分规定了根据《海牙公约》（《关于向国外送达民事或商事司法文书和司法外文书公约》）在澳大利亚境外送达司法文件的情形，涵盖本地司法文书的域外送达（第 2 分部）、启动程序域外送达后的缺席判决（第 3 分部）以及外国司法文书在本地送达（第 4 分部）。
Unless the defendant files a notice of appearance, service by private means under Pt 11 Div 1A, and through diplomatic channels under Div 2, must be followed by leave of the court to continue the proceedings: r 11.8 AA . It has long been regarded as an assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction and potentially invasive of foreign sovereignty to permit service within a foreign jurisdiction. Proceedings in the District Court should be transferred to the Supreme Court to obtain leave to proceed: r 44.7 . Service by private means is the more common and acceptable method of service today, since diplomatic methods of service are generally slower and handled more cautiously. 除非被告提交出庭通知，否则根据第 11 部分第 1A 分部的私人送达方式以及第 2 分部的外交渠道送达方式，必须获得法院许可才能继续诉讼程序：规则 11.8 AA。长期以来，允许在外国司法管辖区内进行送达被视为对域外管辖权的主张，并可能侵犯外国主权。地区法院的诉讼应移交至最高法院以获得继续进行的许可：规则 44.7。如今，私人送达是更为常见且可接受的送达方式，因为外交送达方式通常较慢且处理更为谨慎。
Causes of action specified in Sch 6 of the UCPR provide the basis for originating process that may be served on an overseas defendant without leave of the court: r 11.4. The causes of action are generally those that arise in NSW or concern property or acts within NSW. However, any defendant who is domiciled or ordinarily resident in NSW, or who has agreed to submit to the court’s jurisdiction, may be served overseas regardless of whether the cause of action is specified in Sch 6: Sch 6(g)6(\mathrm{~g}). Schedule 6 was amended in 2016^(15)2016^{15} to effectively expand the circumstances in which originating process may be served without leave outside of Australia where the person overseas has been properly joined. Where a defendant is served but 《统一民事诉讼规则》（UCPR）附表 6 中列明的诉因提供了可在无需法院许可的情况下向海外被告送达的初始程序依据：规则 11.4。这些诉因通常产生于新南威尔士州（NSW）或涉及该州内的财产或行为。然而，任何在新南威尔士州有住所或通常居住的被告，或已同意接受法院管辖的被告，无论诉因是否列于附表 6，均可被在海外送达：附表 6(g)6(\mathrm{~g}) 。附表 6 于 2016^(15)2016^{15} 年修订，实质上扩大了在海外当事人被适当追加时无需许可即可在澳大利亚境外送达初始程序的情形。当被告被送达但
fails to appear, leave may be granted to proceed if the applicant shows that the cause of action has a real and substantial connection to Australia as a whole. This has widened the capacity of parties to serve process outside the jurisdiction and has reduced the need to demonstrate damage or breach in any particular State. 如果申请人能够证明诉讼原因与整个澳大利亚有真实且实质性的联系，即使未能出庭，也可能获准继续诉讼。这扩大了当事人向境外送达法律文件的能力，并减少了对在特定州内证明损害或违约的需求。
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) cont. 《2005 年统一民事诉讼规则》（新南威尔士州）续
(i) a necessary or proper party to a proceeding properly brought against another person served or to be served (whether within Australia or outside Australia) under any other provision of these rules, or (i) 根据本规则其他条款规定，在针对已送达或即将送达（无论位于澳大利亚境内或境外）的另一人适当提起的诉讼中，作为必要或适当的当事人
(ii) a defendant to a claim for contribution or indemnity in respect of a liability enforceable by a proceeding in the court, (ii) 对法院可强制执行的责任提出分摊或赔偿索赔的被告，
(i) when the claim is for the administration of the estate of any deceased person who at the time of his or her death was domiciled in Australia or is for any relief or remedy which might be obtained in any such proceeding, (i) 当索赔涉及对任何在去世时住所位于澳大利亚的已故人士的遗产管理，或涉及可能在此类程序中获得的任何救济或补救措施时，
(j) when the claim arises under an Australian enactment and - (j) 当索赔依据澳大利亚法律提出时，且——
(i) any act or omission to which the claim relates was done or occurred in Australia, or (i) 索赔相关的任何作为或不作为是在澳大利亚实施或发生的，或
(ii) any loss or damage to which the claim relates was sustained in Australia, or (ii) 索赔所涉的任何损失或损害发生在澳大利亚，或
(iii) the enactment applies expressly or by implication to an act or omission that was done or occurred outside Australia in the circumstances alleged, or (iii) 该法令明确或隐含地适用于在所指称的情况下在澳大利亚境外实施或发生的作为或不作为，
(iv) the enactment expressly or by implication confers jurisdiction on the court over persons outside Australia (in which case any requirements of the enactment relating to service must be complied with), (iv) 该法令明示或默示授予法院对澳大利亚境外人员的管辖权（在此情况下，必须遵守该法令中有关送达的任何要求），
(k) when the person to be served has submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, (k) 当被送达人已服从法院的管辖时，
(I) when a claim is made for restitution or for the remedy of constructive trust and the alleged liability of the person to be served arises out of an act or omission that was done or occurred wholly or partly in Australia, （I）当提出恢复原状或推定信托救济的索赔，且被送达人的所谓责任源于全部或部分在澳大利亚实施或发生的作为或不作为时，
(m) when it is sought to recognise or enforce any judgment, (m) 当寻求承认或执行任何判决时，
(n) when the claim is founded on a cause of action arising in Australia, (n) 当索赔基于在澳大利亚产生的诉因时，
(o) when the claim affects the person to be served in respect of his or her membership of a corporation incorporated in Australia, or of a partnership or an association formed or carrying on any part of its affairs in Australia, (o) 当索赔影响被送达人作为在澳大利亚注册的公司成员、或在澳大利亚成立或开展部分事务的合伙企业或协会成员的身份时，
§ when the claim concerns the construction, effect or enforcement of an Australian enactment, 当索赔涉及澳大利亚立法的解释、效力或执行时，
(q) when the claim - (q) 当索赔 -
(i) relates to an arbitration held in Australia or governed by Australian law, or (i) 涉及在澳大利亚进行的仲裁或受澳大利亚法律管辖的仲裁，
(ii) is to enforce in Australia an arbitral award wherever made, or (ii) 是在澳大利亚强制执行无论何处作出的仲裁裁决，或
(iii) is for orders necessary or convenient for carrying into effect in Australia the whole or any part of an arbitral award wherever made, (iii) 是为了在澳大利亚执行全部或部分仲裁裁决（无论裁决在何处作出）所必需或便利的命令，
( rr ) when the claim is for relief relating to the custody, guardianship, protection or welfare of a minor present in Australia or who is domiciled or ordinarily or habitually resident in Australia (whether present in Australia or not), ( rr ) 当索赔涉及在澳大利亚境内或惯常居住于澳大利亚（无论是否在澳大利亚境内）的未成年人的监护权、监护、保护或福利时，
(s) when the claim, so far as it concerns the person to be served, falls partly within one or more of the above paragraphs and, as to the residue, within one or more of the others of the above paragraphs. (s) 当索赔涉及被送达人的部分内容属于上述一个或多个段落，而其余部分属于上述其他一个或多个段落时。
Note 1 - Originating process includes a document that initiates a civil proceeding as well as a cross claim or third party claim. 注 1 - 原诉程序包括启动民事诉讼的文件以及交叉索赔或第三方索赔。
Note 2 - If a proceeding is instituted in the court and originating process is served outside of Australia under this Schedule but the court later decides that it is more appropriate that the proceeding be determined by a court of another Australian jurisdiction, the court may transfer the proceeding to that other court under the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 and may make an order for costs against the party who instituted the proceeding in the court rather than in the transferee court. 注 2 - 如果在法院提起诉讼，且根据本附表在澳大利亚境外送达了起始程序文件，但法院随后认定该诉讼更适合由澳大利亚另一司法管辖区的法院裁决，则法院可根据《1987 年法院管辖权（交叉授权）法》将诉讼移交给该另一法院，并可命令在法院而非受移送法院提起诉讼的一方承担诉讼费用。 qquad\qquad
[11.360] Where service of originating process is not allowed under Sch 6 , leave may be sought and obtained in accordance with the requirements of UCPR r 11.5 if the court is satisfied the claim has a real and substantial connection with Australia. Notice in the approved form must be served upon the person served: UCPR r 11.7. A court may, on application by a person who has been served outside Australia, dismiss or stay the proceeding or set aside the service of originating process on grounds set out in UCPR r 11.6. [11.360] 根据附表 6 不允许送达原诉程序的情况下，若法院确信该诉讼与澳大利亚存在真实且实质性的联系，则可依据《统一民事诉讼规则》第 11.5 条寻求并获准许可。必须向被送达人送达经核准格式的通知：《统一民事诉讼规则》第 11.7 条。法院可根据《统一民事诉讼规则》第 11.6 条所列理由，应已在澳大利亚境外被送达人的申请，驳回或中止诉讼，或撤销原诉程序的送达。
(1) This Part applies to proceedings in the Supreme Court. (1) 本部分适用于最高法院的诉讼程序。
(2) For the purposes of this Part, a reference to Australia includes a reference to the external Territories. (2) 就本部分而言，对澳大利亚的提及包括对外部领土的提及。
11.2 Operation of Commonwealth laws and Hague Convention 11.2 联邦法律与海牙公约的运作
This Part does not require the leave of the Supreme Court for any service or other thing that may be effected or done under any law of the Commonwealth, the Hague Convention or Part 11A. 本部分不要求就根据联邦法律、《海牙公约》或第 11A 部分可能生效或完成的任何送达或其他事项获得最高法院的许可。
Note - Part 11A deals with the service of judicial documents under the Hague Convention. 注 - 第 11A 部分涉及根据《海牙公约》送达司法文件。
11.3 Division does not apply to service in New Zealand of documents for or in certain trans-Tasman proceedings 11.3 除法不适用于在新西兰送达某些跨塔斯曼诉讼的文件
This Division (which contains rules on service outside of Australia) does not apply to service in New Zealand of an originating process for, or of any other document to be served in or for, a proceeding an originating process for which may be served in New Zealand under Division 2 of Part 2 of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 of the Commonwealth. 本部分（包含关于在澳大利亚境外送达的规定）不适用于在新西兰送达的启动程序，或任何其他在或为诉讼中送达的文件，该诉讼的启动程序可根据联邦《2010 年跨塔斯曼诉讼程序法》第 2 部分第 2 分部的规定在新西兰送达。
11.4 Cases for service of originating process 11.4 原诉文件送达的案例
Except when the court otherwise orders, a defendant who has been served outside of Australia must file an appearance within 42 days from the date of service. 除非法院另有命令，在澳大利亚境外被送达的被告必须在送达之日起 42 天内提交出庭通知。
11.8AA Leave to proceed where no appearance by person 11.8AA 无人出庭时的继续审理许可
(1) If an originating process is served on a person outside Australia and the person does not enter an appearance, the party serving the document may not proceed against the person served except by leave of the court. (1) 如果在澳大利亚境外向某人送达原诉文件且该人未出庭，送达文件的当事人不得对受送达人采取进一步行动，除非获得法院许可。
(2) An application for leave under subrule (1) may be made without serving notice of the application on the person served with the originating process. (2) 根据第(1)款提出的休假申请，可在不向原诉文件送达对象发出申请通知的情况下进行。
[11.380] The following extract from the decision of the High Court in Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552 discusses whether an assessment of the strength of the plaintiff’s case is a relevant matter to be considered when determining whether leave to proceed will be given. [11.380] 高等法院在 Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552 案判决中的以下摘录讨论了在决定是否给予诉讼许可时，评估原告案件强度是否为一个相关考量因素。
Agar v Hyde
[11.390] Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552; 173 ALR 665; 74 ALJR 1219; [2000] HCA 41
[Hyde and Worsley were young rugby players who suffered severe spinal injuries in separate rugby games. They sued relevant parties involved in the games as well as administrators of the sport for negligence in the conduct of the match and the rules under which it was played, and for their failure to modify the rules of the game locally so as to require scrummaging and other play to take place safely. They also sought leave to join as defendants a wider group of people who were responsible for rugby at the international level. 海德和沃斯利是年轻的橄榄球运动员，在各自的橄榄球比赛中遭受了严重的脊柱损伤。他们起诉了比赛相关方以及赛事管理者，指控其在比赛执行和规则制定上存在疏忽，未能修改当地比赛规则以确保争球及其他动作的安全进行。他们还申请将负责国际层面橄榄球事务的更广泛群体列为共同被告。
The judge at first instance dismissed their applications to join the overseas parties and set aside service of process upon them. This was on the grounds there was no relevant proximity between the respective parties to give rise to duties of care and the judicial discretion under Pt 10 r 1 A (now UCPR r 11.2 and Sch 6). In exercising the discretion against the applications, the judge specifically took into account that requiring a foreigner to defend a claim should be exercised with restraint and 一审法官驳回了他们加入海外当事人的申请，并撤销了对这些当事人的送达程序。理由是各方之间不存在相关紧密关系以产生注意义务，且根据第 10 部分第 1A 条规则（现为《统一民事诉讼规则》第 11.2 条及附表 6）的司法裁量权不予支持。在行使裁量权驳回申请时，法官特别考虑到要求外国人应诉应当谨慎克制。
Agar v Hyde cont. Agar v Hyde 续
that establishing liability against the international administrators of the sport would be difficult in the cases at hand. Hyde and Worsley appealed successfully to the Court of Appeal. The High Court then granted leave to appeal.] 在当前案件中，确立对国际体育管理者的责任将十分困难。海德（Hyde）和沃斯利（Worsley）成功向上诉法院提出上诉。随后，高等法院准许了上诉许可。
GAUDRON, MCHUGH, GUMMOW AND HAYNE JJ GAUDRON、McHUGH、GUMMOW 和 HAYNE 法官
[25] These two appeals raise questions about the assumption and exercise of jurisdiction by the Supreme Court of New South Wales over defendants who have been served with originating process outside Australia. Both appeals are brought by defendants who were served outside Australia with a Statement of Claim by which (in each case) the plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries he sustained when playing rugby union football in a match conducted in New South Wales … [25] 这两起上诉案对新南威尔士州最高法院对在澳大利亚境外收到诉讼文件送达的被告行使管辖权的假设与实践提出了质疑。两案均由被告提起，他们在澳大利亚境外收到了原告提交的索赔声明，原告均声称在新南威尔士州举行的橄榄球联盟比赛中受伤并索赔损害赔偿……
[47] The applicable Rules [UCPR Pt 11], however, mark the departure from the models based on the Chancery practice and do not require leave to serve out of the jurisdiction and do not require that the party seeking to serve out demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to the relief sought in the originating process. All that the applicable Rules say is that “the plaintiff shall not proceed against [a defendant served outside Australia who has not entered appearance] except with the leave of the Court”. The applicable Rules are silent about what matters can or should be taken into account in granting or refusing that leave. [47] 然而，适用的规则[《统一民事诉讼规则》第 11 部分]标志着与基于衡平法院实践模式的背离，既无需申请域外送达许可，也不要求寻求域外送达的一方证明其在初始程序中主张的救济具有初步权利依据。适用规则仅规定"原告不得对[在澳大利亚境外被送达且未应诉的被告]继续诉讼，除非获得法院许可"。对于准予或拒绝此类许可时可以考虑或应当考虑哪些事项，适用规则未作明确规定。
[48] Part 10 r 1A [now UCPR r 11.2 and Sch 6] of the applicable Rules permits the service of originating process outside Australia only in certain specified cases. If a defendant served outside Australia has not entered an appearance, an applicant for leave to proceed must demonstrate that one or more of the cases set out in r 1A [Sch 6] applies. Those cases are described either as “where the proceedings are founded on” a particular kind of claim, or as “where the subject matter of the proceedings” is of a particular kind. [48] 适用规则第 10 部分第 1A 条[现为《统一民事诉讼规则》第 11.2 条及附表 6]仅允许在特定规定情形下在澳大利亚境外送达起始程序文件。若被告在境外被送达且未出庭，申请继续进行的当事人必须证明符合第 1A 条[附表 6]所列的一项或多项情形。这些情形被描述为"诉讼基于"特定类型的索赔，或"诉讼标的"属于特定类别。
[49] To take the particular paragraphs which the respondents relied on in these matters, it was said that the originating process in each action might be served outside Australia because: [49] 关于答辩方在这些事项中所依赖的具体段落，据称每项诉讼的起始程序均可在澳大利亚境外送达，理由是：
(a) … the proceedings are founded on a cause of action arising in the State; (a) … 诉讼是基于在该州产生的诉因而提起的；
(d) … the proceedings are founded on a tort committed in the State; (d) … 诉讼基于在该州实施的侵权行为；
(e) … the proceedings, wholly or partly, are founded on, or are for the recovery of damages in respect of, damage suffered in the State caused by a tortious act or omission wherever occurring; (e) …诉讼程序全部或部分基于在该州境内因侵权行为或不作为（无论发生在何处）而遭受的损害，或是为追偿该损害所导致的赔偿金；
(i) … the proceedings are properly brought against a person served or to be served in the State and the person to be served outside the State is properly joined as a party to the proceedings. (i) … 诉讼程序已正确地对在州内被送达或将被送达的人提起，且将被送达至州外的人被适当地列为诉讼的一方当事人。
[50] In deciding whether Pt 10 r 1 A [now UCPR r 11.2 and Sch 6] applied, and thus permitted service outside Australia of the originating process in these two actions, attention must be directed to the way in which the claims made by the respondents are framed. The paragraphs speak of “proceedings [which] are founded on” a specified matter such as a cause of action arising in the State or a tort committed in the State. That focuses attention upon the nature of the claim which is made. That is, is the claim a claim in which the plaintiff alleges that he has a cause of action which, according to those allegations, is a cause of action arising in the State? [50] 在判定《Pt 10 r 1 A》[现为《UCPR r 11.2 及 Sch 6》]是否适用，从而允许这两项诉讼的初始程序在澳大利亚境外送达时，必须关注被告方所提索赔主张的构建方式。相关条款提及“诉讼[基于]”特定事项，例如在州内产生的诉因或在州内实施的侵权行为。这要求聚焦于所提索赔的性质。即，原告是否主张其拥有一个根据其指控属于在州内产生的诉因？
[51] The inquiry just described neither requires nor permits an assessment of the strength (in the sense of the likelihood of success) of the plaintiff’s claim. The Court of Appeal was wrong to make such an assessment in deciding whether the Rules permitted service out. In so far as the contrary was held in Bank of America v Bank of New York (1995) ATPR 941-390941-390 it should be overruled. The application of these paragraphs of r 1A depends on the nature of the allegations which the plaintiff makes, not on whether those allegations will be made good at trial. Once a claim is seen to be of the requisite [51] 上述调查既不要求也不允许对原告主张的强度（即成功的可能性）进行评估。上诉法院在判断《规则》是否允许域外送达时进行此类评估是错误的。就美国银行诉纽约银行案（1995）ATP R 941-390941-390 中持相反意见的部分，应予以推翻。规则 1A 这些条款的适用取决于原告提出的指控性质，而非这些指控是否会在庭审中得到证实。一旦认定某项主张符合法定
Agar v Hyde cont. Agar v Hyde 续
kind, the proceeding falls within the relevant paragraph or paragraphs of Pt 10 r 1 A , service outside Australia is permitted, and prima facie the plaintiff should have leave to proceed. 在这种情况下，程序符合 Pt 10 r 1 A 的相关段落规定，允许在澳大利亚境外进行送达，初步看来原告应获准继续推进诉讼。
[52] Often enough, the statement of claim will reveal all that it is necessary to know to assess whether a plaintiff’s claim is of the requisite kind. But that may not always be so. For example, the place of making of a contract, or the place of breach of a contract, may not appear from the pleading and some evidence may be required to establish that a relevant paragraph of Pt 10 r 1 A is engaged. And where, as here, a plaintiff relies on Pt 10 r 1A(1)1 \mathrm{~A}(1) (i), which provides for service outside the State on a person who is properly joined as a party to proceedings “properly brought against a person served or to be served in the State”, other considerations may arise in deciding both whether the joinder is proper and whether the action is “properly brought”. Those questions may, however, be left to one side in the present cases because (subject to one consideration to which it will be necessary to return) it is clear that each of the proceedings is “wholly or partly … founded on, or [is] for the recovery of damages in respect of, damage suffered in the State caused by a tortious act or omission wherever occurring”. The claim in each of the present matters is framed in negligence and alleges that tortious acts or omissions caused the damage which the respondent suffered when injured in New South Wales. [52] 通常情况下，诉状陈述足以揭示评估原告主张是否符合必要类型所需了解的全部信息。但情况并非总是如此。例如，合同订立地或合同违约地可能未在诉状中体现，此时可能需要提供某些证据以确定《第 10 部分第 1A 条》的相关条款是否适用。此外，如本案中原告依据《第 10 部分第 1A(1)1 \mathrm{~A}(1) (i)条》——该条款规定对"正当加入作为州内被送达或拟被送达人员之诉讼当事人"的州外人员可进行域外送达——在判定当事人加入是否正当及诉讼是否"正当提起"时，还需考量其他因素。不过在当前案件中，这些问题可暂不讨论，因为（除需后续探讨的一个考量因素外）显然每项诉讼都"全部或部分...基于侵权行为或不作为（无论发生在何处）在州内造成的损害而提起，或是为追偿该损害所涉赔偿金"。 在本案中，每项索赔均以过失为由提出，指控侵权行为或不作为导致被申请人在新南威尔士州受伤时遭受损害。
The intersection of applications for leave to proceed and applications to set aside service 请假申请与撤销送达申请的交叉点
[53] In some cases, an application for leave to proceed will not be opposed. It is an application which may be made without serving notice of the motion on the defendant. Where the application is made without notice to a defendant, there will be no occasion to consider any question about the strength of the plaintiff’s claim. If, however, as was the case in each of these matters, the application for leave to proceed is opposed, and is joined with an application by parties served outside Australia to set aside service or to have the Court decline to exercise its jurisdiction, other considerations arise. It is necessary, in such a case, to recall that there are different issues raised on the hearing of an application for leave to proceed from those that arise on the hearing of applications to set aside service or to decline to exercise jurisdiction. [53] 在某些情况下，申请继续进行诉讼的许可不会遭到反对。此类申请可在不向被告送达动议通知的情况下提出。若申请未通知被告，则无需考虑原告主张的强度问题。然而，如本案所示，当申请许可遭到反对，并与境外被送达方提出的撤销送达或要求法院拒绝行使管辖权的申请合并审理时，便需考量其他因素。在此类情形下，必须注意许可申请听证所涉问题与撤销送达或拒绝行使管辖权听证所涉问题存在差异。
[54] Central to the inquiry on an application for leave to proceed is whether the originating process makes claims of a kind which one or more of the paragraphs in Pt 10 r 1A [now UCPR r 11.2 and Sch 6] mention. If the originating process makes such a claim, r 1 A provides that the process may be served outside Australia and, on proof of service of the process, the Court’s jurisdiction is, prima facie, properly invoked over the party who has been served. In the absence of some countervailing consideration, leave to proceed should then be given. [54] 申请继续进行许可的核心问题在于，初始程序是否提出了《民事诉讼规则》第 10 部分第 1A 条（现为《统一民事诉讼规则》第 11.2 条及附表 6）中某一款或多款所提及的索赔类型。如果初始程序提出了此类索赔，则第 1A 条规定该程序可在澳大利亚境外送达，且在证明程序已送达的情况下，法院对已送达方初步具备适当管辖权。若无相反考量因素，则应准予继续进行许可。
[55] On an application to set aside service, or to have the Court decline to exercise jurisdiction, attention might be directed to any of a number of features of the proceeding, the claims made in it, or the parties to it, in aid of the proposition that the Court should not exercise jurisdiction. Part 10 r 6A [UCPR r 11.7] is cast in general terms and it would be wrong to attempt some exhaustive description of the grounds upon which the rule might be invoked. Nevertheless, it may be expected that three common bases for doing so are first, that the claims made are not claims of a kind which are described in Pt 10 r 1A [UCPR r 11.2 and Sch 6] secondly, that the Court is an inappropriate forum for the trial of the proceeding and thirdly, that the claims made have insufficient prospects of success to warrant putting an overseas defendant to the time, expense and trouble of defending the claims. Whether the Rules prescribe a different test for determining questions of inappropriate forum from that developed at common law [Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 55; (1990) 171 CLR 538] is a question which we need not stay to consider. In these cases, it is necessary to deal only with the last of the bases we have mentioned. It was on this that the appellants chiefly relied. [55] 在申请撤销送达或请求法院拒绝行使管辖权的程序中，为支持法院不应行使管辖权的论点，可将注意力集中于诉讼程序的诸多特征、其中提出的索赔或涉及的当事人中的任何一项。《统一民事诉讼规则》第 10 章第 6A 条[《统一民事诉讼规则》第 11.7 条]以概括性措辞表述，试图详尽列举援引该条款的依据是错误的。然而，可以预期三种常见理由：首先，所提出的索赔不属于第 10 章第 1A 条[《统一民事诉讼规则》第 11.2 条及附表 6]所述类型；其次，该法院并非审理该诉讼的适当管辖地；第三，所提出的索赔成功可能性过低，不足以证明让海外被告投入时间、费用和精力进行抗辩的合理性。至于《规则》是否规定了与普通法发展而来的标准（参见 Voth 诉 Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd 案[1990] HCA 55; (1990) 171 CLR 538）不同的测试标准以判定不适当管辖地问题，我们无需在此停留讨论。 在这些情况下，只需处理我们提到的最后一个基础即可。上诉方主要依赖的就是这一点。
Insufficient prospects 前景不足
[56] If service was authorised by the Rules, and has been properly effected, the Court’s authority to determine the issues that are raised by the proceeding has been regularly invoked. If the Court [56] 如果服务是根据《规则》授权的，并且已经适当执行，法院对诉讼所提出问题的裁决权已被正式援引。如果法院
Agar v Hyde cont. Agar v Hyde 续
is not persuaded that it is an inappropriate forum for trial of the proceedings, it will have reached that conclusion having given due weight to the considerations of comity and restraint which we mentioned earlier. Only then do the prospects of success of a claim made in originating process served outside Australia fall for consideration. 如果法院未被说服认为该诉讼在此审理是不适当的，那么它将在充分考虑我们之前提到的礼让与克制原则后得出这一结论。只有到那时，在澳大利亚境外送达的起诉程序中提出的主张的成功前景才会被纳入考量。
[57] It is, of course, well accepted that a court whose jurisdiction is regularly invoked in respect of a local defendant (most often by service of process on that defendant within the geographic limitations of the court’s jurisdiction) should not decide the issues raised in those proceedings in a summary way except in the clearest of cases. Ordinarily, a party is not to be denied the opportunity to place his or her case before the court in the ordinary way, and after taking advantage of the usual interlocutory processes. The test to be applied has been expressed in various ways [Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners [1949] HCA 1; (1949) 78 CLR 62 at 91 per Dixon J; General Steel Industries Inc vv Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125 at 130 per Barwick CJ] but all of the verbal formulae which have been used are intended to describe a high degree of certainty about the ultimate outcome of the proceeding if it were allowed to go to trial in the ordinary way. [57] 当然，人们普遍接受的是，一个经常对本地被告行使管辖权的法院（最常见的是通过在法院管辖地域范围内向被告送达传票）不应以简易方式决定这些诉讼中提出的问题，除非是在最明确的案件中。通常情况下，一方当事人不应被剥夺以常规方式将其案件提交法院的机会，并且在利用通常的中间程序之后。适用的标准已以多种方式表达[Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners [1949] HCA 1; (1949) 78 CLR 62 at 91 per Dixon J; General Steel Industries Inc vv Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125 at 130 per Barwick CJ]，但所有使用的措辞公式都旨在描述如果允许诉讼以常规方式进行审判，对最终结果的高度确定性。
[58] It was suggested, in the present matters, that some less demanding test should be adopted in cases where a defendant served overseas seeks to have that service set aside. There are at least two reasons why that should not be done. First, and most fundamentally, what is the criterion which is to be applied? Are proceedings to be terminated upon a prediction (on what almost invariably will be less evidence and argument than would be available at trial) of the “likely” or “probable” outcome of the proceeding? That cannot be so. It would be wrong to deny a plaintiff resort to the ordinary processes of a court on the basis of a prediction made at the outset of a proceeding if that prediction is to be made simply on a preponderance of probabilities. And if it is not to be enough to persuade the court that it is more probable than not that the case against a defendant will fail, and some higher test (less than that now applied in applications for summary judgment) is to be applied, how is that test to be described? The attachment of intensifying epithets, such as “very” or “highly”, offers little useful guidance for those judicial officers who would have to apply the test and who would have to do so, often enough, in a busy practice list. Such a test would be unworkable. [58] 在当前事项中，有人建议对于被告在海外接受送达后申请撤销送达的情形，应采用更低标准的审查。但至少有两个理由反对这种做法。首先且最根本的是，应采用何种标准？是否应根据对诉讼"可能"或"很可能"结果的预测（这种预测所依据的证据和论证几乎必然少于正式庭审）来终止程序？这显然不可行。若仅基于概率优势就在诉讼初期作出预测，并据此剥夺原告诉诸正常司法程序的权利，这种做法是错误的。而如果要求的标准不仅是要让法院相信被告胜诉的可能性更大，还需适用某种更高标准（低于现行即决判决申请中的标准），那么又该如何界定这一标准？ 强化修饰词（如“非常”或“高度”）的附加，对那些必须适用该标准且往往在繁忙的实务列表中频繁操作的司法官员来说，几乎提供不了有用的指导。这样的标准将无法操作。
[59] Secondly, as the present proceedings show, the application of some different, and lower, test in favour of overseas defendants would lead to unacceptable results. It would mean that proceedings must continue to trial against those defendants who happen to have been served with the originating process within the jurisdiction, but can be brought to a summary end by those who are served overseas even where the claims against the local and overseas defendants are identical. [59] 其次，正如当前诉讼程序所示，对海外被告适用某种不同且更低标准的测试将导致不可接受的结果。这意味着针对那些恰好在司法管辖区内被送达初始诉讼文件的被告，诉讼必须继续审理至庭审阶段；而对于在海外被送达的被告，即使针对本地与海外被告的诉请完全相同，案件也可通过简易程序终结。
[60] For these reasons, the same test should be applied in deciding whether originating process served outside Australia makes claims which have such poor prospects of success that the proceeding should not go to trial as is applied in an application for summary judgment by a defendant served locally. [60] 基于这些原因，在判断境外送达的起诉程序所提出的主张是否因成功前景极差而不应进入庭审时，应采用与本地送达被告申请即决判决时相同的检验标准。
[61] The appellants submitted that the respondents’ claims against them were doomed to fail: first, because the claims made were statute barred and secondly, because the appellants owed no duty of care to the respondents. We deal first with the appellants’ alleged duty of care. [61] 上诉人提出，被上诉人对他们的索赔注定失败：首先，因为所提出的索赔已过诉讼时效，其次，因为上诉人对被上诉人不存在注意义务。我们首先处理上诉人所谓的注意义务问题。
The appeals to this Court should each be allowed with costs. 上诉至本法院的每项请求均应获准，并附带诉讼费用。
" [ "soc\text { [ } \operatorname{soc}
[11.400] Service of documents on overseas defendants may be effected through diplomatic channels under Div 2 of Pt 11. This relates to service of documents in countries that are not signatories to a relevant international convention such as the Hague Convention. In such cases, the documents to be served must be transmitted by the Supreme Court to the DirectorGeneral of the Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department, following compliance with the requirements outlined in UCPR r 11.10. [11.400] 对海外被告的文件送达可通过外交渠道依据第 11 部分第 2 分部的规定进行。这适用于在未签署相关国际公约（如《海牙公约》）的国家进行的文件送达。在此类情况下，待送达文件须由最高法院在遵守《统一民事诉讼规则》第 11.10 条所述要求后，转交至联邦总检察长部的总干事。
Division 2 Service outside Australia in accordance with Attorney General's arrangements 第 2 部分 根据总检察长安排提供的澳大利亚境外服务
Application of Division 分部的适用
11.8A Application of Division 11.8A 分部的应用
This Division does not apply to any document that is intended to be served on a person outside Australia in accordance with the Hague Convention. 本部分不适用于根据《海牙公约》拟在澳大利亚境外向个人送达的任何文件。
Note - Division 2 of Part 11A deals with the service of local judicial documents in a country (other than Australia) that is a party to the Hague Convention. 注 - 第 11A 部分第 2 分部涉及在《海牙公约》缔约国（澳大利亚除外）送达当地司法文书。
11.9 Definitions 11.9 定义
(cf SCR Part 10, rule 7) （参见 SCR 第 10 部分，规则 7）
In this Division: 在本分部中：
“applicant” means the person by whom an application is made under rule 11.10 (1) (a). “申请人”指根据规则 11.10(1)(a)提出申请的人。
“participating country” means - “参与国”是指 -
(a) any country that is a signatory to an international convention with respect to the service of documents in that country to which Australia is a signatory, or (a) 任何与澳大利亚同为关于在该国送达文件的国际公约签署国的国家，或
(b) in relation to particular proceedings, any other country declared by the Attorney General, or by some other person authorised by the Attorney General for the purposes of this definition, by notice filed in the proceedings, to be a country to which this Division applies. (b) 就特定诉讼而言，指由总检察长或总检察长为该定义目的授权的其他人员通过提交诉讼通知书宣布为本部分适用的国家的任何其他国家。
“undertaking as to expenses” means an undertaking by an applicant or his or her solicitor to pay to the registrar an amount equal to the sum of all expenses incurred in consequence of the request for service. “费用承诺”是指申请人或其律师向登记官承诺支付因送达请求而产生的所有费用总额。
11.11 Procedure on filing and lodgment 11.11 提交与存放程序
(cf SCR Part 10, rules 11 and 12) （参见 SCR 第 10 部分，规则 11 和 12）
(1) After all relevant documents have been filed as referred to in rule 11.10, the principal registrar of the Supreme Court must seal them and send the lodged documents to the Director-General of the Attorney General’s Department for transmission for service, together with such letter of request (if any) as may be necessary. (1) 在根据第 11.10 条提交所有相关文件后，最高法院的首席书记官必须将其密封，并将提交的文件连同必要的请求函（如有）一并送交司法部长官，以便进行送达。
(2) A certificate as to service, attempted service or non-service of any document so sent that is issued by: (2) 由以下机构签发的关于如此发送的任何文件的送达、尝试送达或未送达的证明：
(a) a judicial authority or other responsible person in the country concerned, or (a) 有关国家的司法机关或其他负责人
(b) a British or Australian consular authority in the country concerned, (b) 英国或澳大利亚在该国的领事机构
is evidence of the matters stated in the certificate. 是证书中所述事项的证据。
11.12 Recovery of unpaid expenses 11.12 未支付费用的追回
(cf SCR Part 10, rule 13) （参见 SCR 第 10 部分，规则 13）
If an applicant who has given an undertaking as to expenses does not, within 7 days after service on the applicant of an account of expenses incurred in relation to his or her application, pay to the principal registrar of the Supreme Court the amount of the expenses, the Supreme Court - 如果申请人已承诺承担费用，但在向其送达与申请相关的费用清单后 7 天内未向最高法院首席书记官支付该费用，最高法院——
(a) may order the applicant to pay the amount of the expenses to the principal registrar, and (a) 可命令申请人向主登记官支付该笔费用，
(b) may stay the proceedings, until payment is made, so far as concerns the whole or any part of any claim for relief by the applicant. (b) 可以中止诉讼程序，直至支付完成，就申请人提出的全部或部分救济请求而言。
[11.420] Service under the Hague Convention ^(16){ }^{16} is an alternative means of effecting service outside of Australia. Service of local judicial documents overseas and of documents to obtain default judgment in the local court after satisfactory service overseas are governed by Divs 1 and 2 of Pt 11A of the UCPR. This is the only mode of service to be used in relation to a judicial document of the Supreme Court where the Convention applies with respect to countries that are signatories to the Convention: UCPR r 11A.3. Details of the applications to be made and how they are to be dealt with are set out in UCPR rr 11A.4-11A.8. [11.420] 根据《海牙公约》 ^(16){ }^{16} 进行的送达是在澳大利亚境外实施送达的替代方式。本地司法文书在海外送达以及为在海外满意送达后于本地法院获取缺席判决所需文书的送达，均受《统一民事诉讼规则》（UCPR）第 11A 部分第 1 和第 2 分部的规定约束。对于适用《公约》的缔约国最高法院司法文书的送达，这是唯一可采用的送达方式：参见 UCPR 规则 11A.3。关于需提交的申请及其处理方式的详细信息，规定于 UCPR 规则 11A.4 至 11A.8 中。
[11.430] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) regs 11A.3-11A. 8 [11.430] 《2005 年统一民事诉讼规则》（新南威尔士州）第 11A.3-11A.8 条
Division 2 Service abroad of local judicial documents 第 2 分部 本地司法文书在国外的送达
11A.3 Application of Division 11A.3 分部的应用
(1) Subject to subrule (2), this Division applies to service in a Convention country of a local judicial document. (1) 在遵守第(2)款的前提下，本部分适用于在公约国家送达本地司法文书。
(2) This Division does not apply if service of the document is effected, without application of any compulsion, by an Australian diplomatic or consular agent mentioned in Article 8 of the Hague Convention. (2) 如果文件的送达是由《海牙公约》第 8 条所述的澳大利亚外交或领事官员在不施加任何强制的情况下完成的，则本部分不适用。
16 Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (1965). 16 《关于向国外送达民事或商事司法文书和司法外文书的海牙公约》（1965 年）。
11A. 7 Payment of costs 11A. 7 费用支付
(1) On receipt of a notice under rule 11A.6(3) in relation to the costs of service, the legal practitioner or applicant, as the case may be, must pay to the Registrar the amount specified in the notice as the amount of those costs. (1) 在收到根据规则 11A.6(3)发出的关于送达费用的通知后，相关法律从业者或申请人（视情况而定）必须向司法常务官支付通知中指定的该笔费用金额。
(2) If the legal practitioner or applicant fails to pay that amount within 28 days after receiving the notice - (2) 如果法律从业者或申请人未在收到通知后 28 天内支付该款项——
(a) except by leave of the Court, the applicant may not take any further step in the proceedings to which the local judicial document relates until those costs are paid to the Registrar, and (a) 除非获得法庭许可，申请人不得在与本地司法文书相关的诉讼程序中采取任何进一步步骤，直至该费用已向司法常务官缴付为止
(b) the Registrar may take such steps as are appropriate to enforce the undertaking for payment of those costs. (b) 登记官可采取适当措施强制执行支付这些费用的承诺。
11A.8 Evidence of service 11A.8 服务证明
A certificate of service in relation to a local judicial document (being a certificate in due form within the meaning of rule 11A.6(2)) that certifies that service of the document was effected on a specified date is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, sufficient proof that - 关于本地司法文书的送达证明（即符合规则 11A.6(2)所定义之适当形式的证明），若该证明证实文书已于特定日期送达，则在无反证的情况下，足以证明——
(a) service of the document was effected by the method specified in the certificate on that date, and (a) 文件已于该日期通过证书中指定的方式完成送达服务
(b) if that method of service was requested by the applicant, that method is compatible with the law in force in the Convention country in which service was effected. (b) 如果该送达方式是由申请人请求的，且该方式与实施送达的公约国现行法律相兼容。
[11.440] Division 3 of Pt 11A deals with the obtaining of default judgment following service abroad of initiating process in Hague Convention cases. In accordance with the Convention, where the appropriate certificate of service has been filed and the served defendant has not appeared or filed a notice of address for service, a court may enter default judgment only where service was effected properly and within time defined as “sufficient”: UCPR r 11A.10. The Convention through Pt 11A protects an overseas defendant in this way, providing circumstances in which the power to enter default judgment may be restricted or set aside: UCPR rr 11A.11, 11A. 12. [11.440] 第 11A 部分第 3 分部涉及在海牙公约案件中，启动程序在境外送达后获得缺席判决的问题。根据公约规定，在适当的送达证明已提交且被送达的被告未出庭或未提交送达地址通知书的情况下，法院仅在送达已“充分”且按时完成时方可作出缺席判决：《统一民事诉讼规则》第 11A.10 条。公约通过第 11A 部分以这种方式保护境外被告，规定了限制或撤销作出缺席判决权力的情形：《统一民事诉讼规则》第 11A.11 条、第 11A.12 条。
Division 3 Default judgment following service abroad of initiating process 第 3 分部 向境外送达启动程序后的缺席判决
11A.9 Application of Division 11A.9 分部的应用
This Division applies to civil proceedings for which an initiating process has been forwarded following a request for service abroad to the Central Authority (or to an additional authority) for a Convention country. 本部分适用于针对公约国家的中央机关（或附加机关）提出境外送达请求后已转发启动程序的民事诉讼。
11A.10 Restriction on power to enter default judgment if certificate of service filed 11A.10 提交送达证书后限制作出缺席判决的权力
(1) This rule applies if - (1) 本规则适用于以下情况 -
(a) a certificate of service of initiating process has been filed in the proceedings (being a certificate in due form within the meaning of rule 11A.6(2)) that states that service has been duly effected, and (a) 已在本诉讼程序中提交送达传票的证明书（即符合规则 11A.6(2)所规定适当形式的证明书），其中声明送达已正式完成，且
(b) the defendant has not appeared or filed a notice of address for service. (b) 被告未出庭或未提交送达地址通知。
Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) cont. 《2010 年跨塔斯曼诉讼程序法》（联邦）续
(3) An application to have a judgment set aside under this rule may be filed - (3) 根据本规则申请撤销判决可提交——
(a) at any time within 12 months after the date on which the judgment was given, or (a) 在判决作出之日起 12 个月内的任何时间，或
(b) after the expiry of that 12-month period, within such time after the defendant acquires knowledge of the judgment as the Court considers reasonable in the circumstances. (b) 在上述 12 个月期限届满后，在法院认为合理的情况下，被告在知悉判决后的合理时间内。
(4) Nothing in this rule affects any other power of the Court to set aside or vary a judgment. (4) 本规则中的任何规定均不影响法院撤销或变更判决的其他权力。
ــ
[11.460] Division 4 of Pt 11A provides for service local service of foreign judicial documents, including the due form, the manner of service and the circumstances in which the issue of service may require reference to the Attorney-General’s Department of the Commonwealth. [11.460] 第 11A 部第 4 分部规定了外国司法文书的本地送达，包括适当形式、送达方式以及在何种情况下送达问题可能需要提交联邦总检察长部门处理的情形。
TRANS-TASMAN SERVICE 跨塔斯曼服务
[11.470] Service of Australian court documents in New Zealand is governed by the TransTasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth), which establishes a streamlined process for service in New Zealand (s 3) by allowing for the serving of initiating documents originating in Australian Federal or State Courts in New Zealand by the same rules as those provided in the UCPR: s 9. Once properly served, an originating process served in New Zealand has the same effect as if it had been served in Australia: s 10. Leave of court is not required prior to serving an initiating process in New Zealand, and there is no requirement that a connection between the Australian proceeding and New Zealand be demonstrated prior to service being effected: s 9 . [11.470] 澳大利亚法院文件在新西兰的送达受《2010 年跨塔斯曼诉讼程序联邦法》管辖，该法通过允许依据《统一民事诉讼规则》(UCPR)规定的相同规则（第 9 条），对源自澳大利亚联邦或州法院的初始文件在新西兰进行送达（第 3 条），从而建立了一套简化的送达流程。一旦正确送达，在新西兰送达的初始程序文件具有与在澳大利亚送达相同的效力（第 10 条）。在新西兰送达初始程序文件前无需获得法院许可，且不要求在送达完成前证明澳大利亚诉讼程序与新西兰之间存在关联（第 9 条）。
The High Court recently addressed - and rejected - an argument that the Commonwealth Parliament did not have the legislative power to authorise the service abroad of an initiating process of a State court in relation to a civil proceeding involving only State law, Parliament’s power being limited to enacting such a law that would allow for service of initiating process of a State court exercising federal jurisdiction. ^(17){ }^{17} This confirms what the text of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act seems to provide, which is that any initiating process from any Australian court can be more easily served in New Zealand than in other overseas countries. 高等法院最近处理并驳回了一项论点，该论点认为联邦议会没有立法权力授权在国外送达仅涉及州法律的民事诉讼程序中州法院的启动程序，议会的权力仅限于制定允许送达行使联邦管辖权的州法院启动程序的法律。 ^(17){ }^{17} 这确认了《跨塔斯曼诉讼程序法》文本似乎规定的内容，即来自任何澳大利亚法院的启动程序在新西兰比在其他海外国家更容易送达。
[11.480] Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) ss 8-12 [11.480] 《2010 年跨塔斯曼诉讼程序法》（联邦）第 8-12 条
No 35, 2010 2010 年第 35 号
Division 2—Service in New Zealand of initiating documents issued by Australian courts and tribunals 第 2 部分——澳大利亚法院和法庭签发的起始文件在新西兰的送达
8 Application of this Part 8 本部分的适用
(1) This Part applies to: (1) 本部分适用于：
(a) a civil proceeding commenced in an Australian court ^(18){ }^{18}; and (a) 在澳大利亚法院提起的民事诉讼 ^(18){ }^{18} ；以及
17 Zurich Insurance Company Ltd v Koper (2023) 277 CLR 164; [2023] HCA 25 per Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gleeson and Jagot JJ (Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ agreeing in the judgment). 17 苏黎世保险公司诉科佩尔案（2023）277 CLR 164；[2023] HCA 25，由基耶尔首席法官、加格勒、格利森和贾戈特法官（戈登、埃德尔曼和斯图尔特法官同意判决）作出。
18 Section 4 of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act defines “Australian court” as: 18 《跨塔斯曼诉讼程序法》第 4 条将“澳大利亚法院”定义为：
(a) a federal court; or (a) 联邦法院；或
(b) a court of a State or Territory. (b) 州或地区的法院。
9 Service of initiating documents in New Zealand 9 新西兰文件送达服务
(1) An initiating document issued by an Australian court or tribunal that relates to the proceeding may be served in New Zealand under this Part. (1) 澳大利亚法院或法庭签发的与诉讼相关的起始文件可根据本部分规定在新西兰送达。
(2) However, the document must be served in New Zealand in the same way that the document is required or permitted, under the procedural rules of the Australian court or tribunal, to be served in the place of issue. (2) 然而，该文件必须按照澳大利亚法院或法庭的程序规则所要求或允许的送达方式，在新西兰境内进行送达，如同在签发地所需遵循的送达方式一样。
Note: For service of the initiating document in New Zealand under this Part, it is not necessary for the Australian court or tribunal: 注：根据本部分规定在新西兰送达起始文件时，澳大利亚法院或法庭无需：
(a) to give leave for the service; or (a) 准予休假；或
(b) to be satisfied that there is a connection between the proceeding and Australia. (b) 确信该诉讼与澳大利亚之间存在关联。
10 Effect of service under section 9 10 根据第 9 条规定的服务效果
Service of an initiating document in New Zealand under section 9: 在新西兰根据第 9 条送达启动文件的服务
(a) has the same effect; and (a) 具有相同的效果；且
(b) gives rise to the same proceeding; (b) 导致相同的程序；
as if the initiating document had been served in the place of issue. 如同发起文件已在签发地送达。
Note: For initiating documents issued by an Australian court, the defendant may apply to the Australian court to stay the proceeding on the grounds that a New Zealand court is the more appropriate court: see Part 3. In some cases, the defendant and the defendant’s lawyer may appear remotely in that stay proceeding without the court’s leave: see subsection 18(4). 注：对于澳大利亚法院签发的起始文件，被告可以以新西兰法院为更合适的法院为由，向澳大利亚法院申请中止诉讼：见第 3 部分。在某些情况下，被告及其律师可在未经法院许可的情况下，远程参与该中止诉讼程序：见第 18(4)款。
11 Information that must be given to the defendant 11 必须向被告提供的信息
(1) An initiating document served under section 9 must contain or be accompanied by information for the defendant that is prescribed by the regulations. (1) 根据第 9 条送达的启动文件必须包含或附带法规规定的被告信息。
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the regulations must prescribe general information for the defendant about: (2) 就第(1)款而言，法规必须为被告规定以下一般信息：
(a) the steps that the defendant must or may take in relation to the proceeding; and (a) 被告在诉讼中必须或可以采取的步骤；以及
(b) the consequences of the document being served on the defendant in New Zealand under section 9 . (b) 根据第 9 条在新西兰向被告送达文件所产生的后果。
12 Consequences of not giving the information to the defendant 12 未向被告提供信息的后果
(1) Failure to comply with section 11 does not invalidate: (1) 未能遵守第 11 条并不导致以下情况无效：
(a) the proceeding; or (a) 程序；或
(b) any step taken in relation to the proceeding. (b) 与诉讼程序相关的任何步骤。
Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) cont. 《2010 年跨塔斯曼诉讼程序法》（联邦）续
(2) However, the issuing Australian court or tribunal may, on application by the defendant under subsection (3), make an order in the terms it considers appropriate setting aside: (2) 然而，根据第(3)款中被告的申请，发出命令的澳大利亚法院或法庭可作出其认为适当的命令，撤销：
(a) the proceeding; or (a) 程序；或
(b) any step taken in relation to the proceeding. (b) 与诉讼程序相关的任何步骤
(3) The defendant’s application can only be made: (3) 被告的申请只能在以下情况下提出：
(a) within a reasonable time; and (a) 在合理时间内；以及
(b) before the defendant has commenced taking any step in the proceeding; after the defendant becomes aware of the failure. (b) 在被告开始采取任何诉讼步骤之前；在被告意识到该失误之后。
SOCR
1 DX Mail is an alternative mail network for hard copy mail. The DX service is used by members in the legal, financial, insurance, government, property and accounting industries. 1 DX Mail 是一个用于硬拷贝邮件的替代邮件网络。DX 服务被法律、金融、保险、政府、房地产和会计行业的成员所使用。
5 Atlasnavios Navegacao, LDA v The Ship “Xin Tai Hai” (No 2) [2012] FCA 1497; 215 FCR 265; Garsec Pty Ltd v His Majesty The Sultan of Brunei [2008] NSWCA 211. 5 Atlasnavios Navegacao, LDA 诉“新泰海”轮案（第 2 号）[2012] FCA 1497；215 FCR 265；Garsec Pty Ltd 诉文莱苏丹陛下案[2008] NSWCA 211。
