Serving Documents Via Facebook
March 2, 2015 | Technology
We are able to assist in serving defendants via Facebook.
Posting on a recipient’s Facebook page is a permissible means of substituted service if evidence establishes that the Facebook page is, in fact, that of the person to be served and the posting is likely to come to that person’s attention – at the place he is to be served – in a timely fashion.
Refer CIV-2008-485-2676, High Court Wellington, 16 March 2009, Gendall AJ.
Call us on 0800 747 633 or click here to email us for more information.
Case Law
- In March 2009, in Axe Market Gardens Limited v Axe,1 the New Zealand High Court ruled that substituted service could be made on a defendant via Facebook as newspaper advertising could not be effectively targeted. Since then, New Zealand courts have continued to make orders providing for service by Facebook.
- In February 2012, the High Court of England and Wales for the first time allowed service on an individual defendant via Facebook. The court allowed the service as the claimant established that the account belonged to the individual defendant to be served (colleagues from the related defendant company were Facebook friends) and was active (the defendant had recently added two friends).
- The New South Wales Court of Appeal recently considered the appropriateness of this method of substituted service.
Case Law - Axe Market Gardens Limited v Axe
On 16 March 2009, the New Zealand High Court ruled (in Axe Market Gardens Limited v Axe CIV-2008-485-2676, High Court Wellington, 16 March 2009, Gendall A J) that substituted service could be made on a defendant overseas via Facebook, where newspaper advertising could not be effectively targeted.
The case involved a claim by a company, Axe Market Gardens Limited against its minority shareholder, Craig Axe for allegedly taking approximately $241,000 from the company's account. The money had apparently been accessed by the defendant via the internet while he was residing in England. It was taken in several separate transactions with the assistance of a second defendant who was able to be served in the ordinary way.
The plaintiff company, however, had difficulties in locating and serving Mr Axe. It was known that he was living in the UK, but his exact location was unknown. This made the effective targeting of newspaper adverts impossible. Mr Axe had corresponded via email and was also known to have a Facebook site.
In the circumstances, the High Court had little difficulty in ordering that the plaintiff was able to serve its proceedings via Facebook and email in order to prevent Mr Axe from avoiding service and frustrating the proceeding.
This is the first time that the New Zealand Courts have allowed the service of proceedings via Facebook, but follows a decision of an Australian Court allowing service of a default judgment on the Facebook site.
