• Pages
    • About Us
    • Services
    • Insights
    • Case Studies
    • Contact Us
  • Pages
    • About Us
    • Services
    • Insights
    • Case Studies
    • Contact Us
  • Services
    • Family Law
      • Child Abduction
      • Child Custody
      • Domestic Violence
      • International Child Abduction
      • Parenting and Children
      • Child Support
      • Separation and Divorce
      • Same Sex and De Facto Relationships
      • Surrogacy
      • Consent Orders
      • Property Settlement
      • Financial Settlement
      • Spousal Maintenance
      • Family Dispute Resolution
      • Referral For Family Therapy
      • Mediation
      • Collaborative Family
      • International Family Law
    • Commercial Law
    • Property Lawyer Sydney
    • Planning and Environment Lawyer
    • Criminal Law Sydney
  • Services
    • Family Law
      • Child Abduction
      • Child Custody
      • Domestic Violence
      • International Child Abduction
      • Parenting and Children
      • Child Support
      • Separation and Divorce
      • Same Sex and De Facto Relationships
      • Surrogacy
      • Consent Orders
      • Property Settlement
      • Financial Settlement
      • Spousal Maintenance
      • Family Dispute Resolution
      • Referral For Family Therapy
      • Mediation
      • Collaborative Family
      • International Family Law
    • Commercial Law
    • Property Lawyer Sydney
    • Planning and Environment Lawyer
    • Criminal Law Sydney
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • © 2025 Sterling Legal Pty Ltd
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • © 2025 Sterling Legal Pty Ltd

Insights

Home Insights You’ve been served – by email!

You’ve been served – by email!

  • July 30, 2022
You’ve been served - by email!

In a recent Federal Court case, it was held that electronic service is taken as effected when something is sent via email, not when it is accessed or reviewed.

The Federal Court held that there is no requirement for the recipient to consent to service via electronic communication.

In this case, Mr Gordon Ogborne was seeking a statutory demand for unpaid wages after he was laid off by his former employer Bioaction.

This statutory demand was sent via delivery of physical documents on 13 January 2022, and provided that the last day to comply was 3 February 2022.

Bioaction submitted their responding documents via email close to the end of the day on 3 February 2022. Ogborne’s solicitor confirmed receipt, but claimed that the documents did not arrive on time as she did not have instructions to accept service by email.

Ogborne attempted to argue that the PDF documents couldn’t be seen as served until the PDF was opened and readable. However, her Honour decided that service can be acehived as long as the documents arrive at the nominated address.

Furthermore, there was pre-existing email correspondence between the two parties using the relevant email addresses. Thus, it was fair to assume that anything sent to those emails would be read and received.

Ultimately, the Federal Court decided in Bioaction’s favour, and their application was deemed to have been validly served.

Key takeaway

  1. All parties should be mindful of the newly expanded rules regarding electronic service of documents.
  2. Pre-existing email correspondence between the parties is relevant to service via email.
  3. Importantly, effective service does not require that there be proof that the documents were actually accessed or reviewed, only that they could have been had someone sought to do so.
  4. The amendments have removed the requirement for the consent of the recipient as a condition of service via electronic communication.

Case – Bioaction Pty Ltd -v- Ogborne [2022] FCA 436 – her Honour Justice Cheeseman

Recent Posts
  • Family trusts are not automatically protected in a property settlement – Caldwell & Caldwell [2026] FedCFamC1A 81
    In Insights
    June 27, 2026
  • Protected: How Many Marriages End In Divorce? A Look At Divorce Statistics In Australia
    In Insights
    June 27, 2026
  • Case Summary: Shehu & Vicario [2026] FedCFamC1A 49
    In Insights
    April 25, 2026
  • High Court Ruling in Bryant v Badenoch: A Shift in the Running Account Defence
    In Insights
    August 19, 2025
  • The Latest on Addbacks – in the wake of Shinohara & Shinohara [2025] FedCFamC1A 126 (23 July 2025)
    In Insights
    August 1, 2025
  • Archive

    • June 2026
    • April 2026
    • August 2025
    • July 2025
    • July 2022
    • June 2022
    • November 2017
  • Categories

    • Insights
  • PrevPrevious
    NextNext
    Sterling Legal

    Quick Links

    • Home
    • About
    • Services
    • Blog
    • Contact Us

    Services

    • Commercial Law & Disputes
    • Conveyancing & Leasing Law
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Family Law
    • Media & Sports Law

    Contact Us

    • 1300 497 007

    • [email protected]

    • Corporate Law Office

      1133 Castlereagh Street, Level 21 Sydney, NSW 2000

    • Community Law Office

      13 Harrow Road Level 5 Auburn, NSW 2144