2025/00378881
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
| 12/12/25 | Applicant | Submissions (PDF, 2.0 MB) |
| 10/2/26 | Applicant | Amended Draft Notice of Appeal (PDF, 3.5 MB) |
| 11/2/26 | Respondent | Submissions (PDF, 876.5 KB) |
| 23/2/26 | Applicant | Reply (PDF, 2.4 MB) |
| 24/2/26 | Appellant |
Certification for Publication (PDF, 364.8 KB) |
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – the applicant seeks to appeal from the decision to dismiss the Argentine Republic’s application for an order declaring that the Initiating Process had not been duly served on it. The dispute relates to proceedings brought against the Argentine Republic seeking orders for judgment by way of recognition and enforcement at common law of a final judgment of the US District Court in the amount of over $15 billion. A summons and list statement were putatively served on 6 January 2025 by an officer of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade by delivery of the documents to the offices of the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship in Buenos Aires. The parties disagree as to whether service was effected in accordance with either s 24 of the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth) (FSI) or s 23 of the Hague Service Convention. The Chief Justice dismissed the application, finding that Petersen were entitled to effect service on the Republic through diplomatic channels in accordance with s 24 of the FSI and that the Hague Service Convention was neither the exclusive means of service nor inconsistent with the FSI in light of the scheme of the FSI and Article 9(2) of the Convention. On appeal, four questions of statutory or treaty interpretation are contended. First, whether s 24 of the FSIA gives the legal character of effective service to acts occurring on the territory of a foreign State even if contrary to treaty obligations of Australia owed to that foreign State precluding service by such acts. Secondly, whether Australia has promised only to permit service to be effected in the territory of the Republic in accordance with the Hague Service Convention. Thirdly, whether Article 9(2) of the Convention provides only for use of the diplomatic channel indirectly to effect service, such that once passed between diplomatic representatives, those documents fall to be served in accordance with the law of the receiving State. Fourthly, what the legal effect of a s 40(1)(d) FSIA certificate is for the purposes of whether s 24 is engaged.
Last updated: