For the second time in three years, an Australian court has allowed documents to be served on a party via the popular social networking site, Facebook.
In April 2010 Federal Magistrate Stewart Brown gave his ruling in Adelaide upon hearing evidence that while the party (Mr. Howard) regularly moved address and did not respond to letters sent to him (either directly or through his parents and girlfriend), he maintained and used a Facebook account.
After being served with the documents, Mr. Howard closed his account with Facebook. It was all too late however, with service being deemed and a judgment for child support made against him.
This case follows a decision in December 2008 in the ACT Supreme Court, granting service of a judgment via Facebook using the facts that the names, dates of birth and ‘friends list’ matched those of the defendants. The orders of the court were allowed to be served on the defendants who did not appear in court.
It must be noted that these two instances follow long and repeated attempts of service by normal and practical means, leaving the court with little resort.
There is no national consensus however, with the District Court of QLD refusing to grant service via Facebook in early 2008. Justice Ryrie cited the ‘uncertainty’ of Facebook in her decision not to allow service. Specifically, Justice Ryrie suggested that there was no way of knowing with certainty that the person named in the Facebook Profile actually operates it or attends to it regularly.
Only time will tell whether the courts continue to exercise such a high level of caution when utilizing new technologies such as social networking sites or pursue these means to ensure service upon parties to litigation.
ANDREW GRAHAM
Law Clerk
