The Court held that s 25C of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) applies to Form 1 prescribed by r 6 of the Service and Execution of Process Regulations 2018 (Cth), so that strict compliance with Form 1 is not required for effective interstate service under s 16 of the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) — substantial compliance suffices. However, the Notice served in this case did not substantially comply because it included both alternative courses of action under the 'Your rights' and 'Contesting this claim' headings (including an incorrect reference to a right to seek a stay unavailable in Supreme Court proceedings), which was objectively capable of misleading the defendants about important rights and obligations. The Court held that substantial compliance is assessed objectively by reference to whether the notice fulfils the protective purpose of Form 1, and that the actual subjective effect on the particular defendant is not relevant once non-compliance is established.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.