S S & Ors v A Tax Appeal Commissioner (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant and Respondent met in 2017 and married in 2019. They have one child born in 2021. The Applicant is an Irish citizen residing in the family home in Dublin, employed locally. The Respondent, a Chinese citizen, currently resides in China with the child, having left Ireland in October 2022 after notifying the Applicant via text message. The Respondent previously worked for a technology company in Ireland. The Applicant contends that the Respondent refused to provide her address in China but did provide an IBAN for child-related payments. The parties maintain regular contact via the messaging platform 'WeChat'.

The Applicant initiated judicial separation proceedings in Ireland, filing an ex parte docket on 12 July 2023 seeking leave to serve the Respondent outside the jurisdiction by 'WeChat' and for substituted service by this means. The County Registrar granted leave on 26 July 2023, authorising service of the Civil Bill and subsequent documents by 'WeChat' with specified time limits for the Respondent to enter an appearance and deliver a defence. The Family Law Civil Bill was filed on 23 August 2023, and the Applicant filed an affidavit of service on 8 November 2023, confirming service by 'WeChat' on 6 September 2023 of the relevant documents.

The Applicant sent further correspondence via 'WeChat' urging the Respondent to enter an appearance, but no appearance was filed. The County Registrar later ordered service by email on 21 February 2024, deeming the prior 'WeChat' service sufficient and granting additional time for the Respondent to respond. Attempts to serve documents by email were unsuccessful due to bounce backs, but the Applicant forwarded documents again via 'WeChat', which the Respondent acknowledged.

The matter was transferred to the Circuit Court on 24 April 2024. The Respondent emailed on 11 July 2024 stating she could not attend the hearing on 12 July 2024 due to visa and employment constraints and disclosed she had applied for divorce proceedings in China. The Circuit Court refused the Applicant’s motion for judgment in default of appearance on 12 July 2024, finding service by 'WeChat' or email alone insufficient under the relevant rules.

The Applicant appealed the Circuit Court’s refusal, filing a notice of appeal on 18 July 2024 and serving it via 'WeChat'. The appeal was heard by the High Court, where the Respondent appeared remotely on 18 December 2024.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether substituted service of judicial separation proceedings by 'WeChat' and email complies with the Circuit Court Rules and statutory provisions governing service of process.
2. Whether the Circuit Court erred in refusing judgment in default of appearance on the basis that service by 'WeChat' and email alone was insufficient.
3. The extent of the Court’s discretion under Sections 7(5) of the Courts Act 1964 and 16(3) of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008 regarding substituted service and the appropriateness of electronic means of service.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
McGrath v. Godfrey [2016] IECA 178	Substituted service must be likely to bring proceedings to the defendant’s knowledge and prevent evasion of service.	The Court found that service via 'WeChat' had effectively brought proceedings to the Respondent’s knowledge, satisfying the principle.
Mahon v Skeehan (1953) 88 ILTR 36	Publication of a condensed form of summons in the press can constitute sufficient substituted service.	Referenced as an example of valid substituted service by non-traditional means.
Daly v. Lynch (Unreported, High Court, 28 March 2012)	Service of proceedings through social media platform Facebook permitted as substituted service.	Supported the acceptability of social media as a method for substituted service in Irish courts.
Trafalgar Developments Ltd & Ors. v. Dmitry Mazepin & Ors. [2022] IEHC 167	Substituted service via combination of post, email, fax, and social media messages.	Confirmed compliance with substituted service orders that include electronic communications.
Kenneth Price v. Douglas [2023] IEHC 247	Deeming service on a solicitor good where the respondent lacked social media presence.	Illustrated flexibility in service methods based on circumstances of the recipient.
D'Aloia v Person Unknown & Others [2022] EWHC 1723 (Ch)	Substituted service by Non-Fungible Token (NFT) embedded in blockchain technology.	Demonstrated the English High Court’s acceptance of novel digital methods of service alongside traditional means.
CMOC Sales & Marketing Limited v Person Unknown and 30 others [2018] EWHC 2230 (Comm)	Service effected by Facebook Messenger, email, and courier.	Confirmed that combined electronic and traditional service methods can satisfy notice requirements.
AW v. AH [2022] EWFC 195	Service by email and 'WeChat' permitted alongside personal service in family law context.	Supported the use of 'WeChat' as an acceptable method for substituted service in family law proceedings.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analysed the statutory framework governing substituted service, including Sections 7(5) of the Courts Act 1964 and Section 16(3) of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008, which provide broad discretion to courts to order substituted service when personal service is impractical. The Court examined the Circuit Court Rules, particularly Order 11, Rules 11-13, which require that substituted service be supported by affidavit and that the service is likely to bring proceedings to the defendant’s knowledge.

The Court found clear evidence that the Respondent received and acknowledged documents served via 'WeChat', satisfying the requirement that the proceedings come to her knowledge. The Court referenced Irish and English authorities illustrating the evolving acceptance of electronic and social media platforms as valid means of substituted service, including cases where service by Facebook, email, and even blockchain-based NFTs were permitted.

Given the Respondent’s actual knowledge of the proceedings and the practical difficulties in serving a person resident abroad, the Court held that substituted service by 'WeChat' and email was appropriate and complied with the relevant rules. The Circuit Court’s refusal to grant judgment in default of appearance on the basis that service by these methods alone was insufficient was overturned.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is allowed.

The Court ordered that all documents served on the Respondent to date by 'WeChat' be deemed good and sufficient service. It directed that all subsequent documents be served by the same 'WeChat' profile and by email as nominated by the Respondent. The time for filing and delivery of an Appearance, Defence, Counterclaim, Affidavit of Means, and Affidavit of Welfare was extended to a specified date.

The matter was remitted to the Circuit Court for further prosecution of the Applicant’s claim. No order was made as to costs. This decision underscores the Court’s recognition of modern communication methods as valid means for substituted service where traditional methods are impractical, provided the defendant’s knowledge of proceedings is established. However, it does not establish a new precedent but applies existing principles to contemporary technologies.