Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Diplock

The matter in question, Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Diplock, arose in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The Commonwealth Bank of Australia, acting as the plaintiff, sought an order for substituted service of their claim and statement of claim against Norman Allwyn Diplock, who was the defendant. The dispute centred on the bank's attempt to enforce a judgment debt owed by the defendant, who was believed to be avoiding service of legal documents.

The legal issues that the court had to resolve included whether substituted service was permissible under the circumstances and, if so, what form this service should take. The court considered the applicable rules of court and the provisions related to service of documents, particularly focusing on the requirements for substituted service when personal service was not feasible.

In delivering the judgment, the court noted that the bank had made several attempts to personally serve the defendant, all of which had failed. Given the defendant's apparent efforts to evade service, the court found that substituted service was justified. The court outlined that the service must be effected by both posting the documents by ordinary post and personally delivering them to the defendant at the specified address. The court further specified that the service would be deemed effective two business days after the posting. The plaintiff's costs associated with the application were to be borne by the plaintiff themselves.

The court granted the orders sought by the plaintiff, permitting the substituted service of the claim and statement of claim. The orders mandated that the service be carried out by posting the documents to the defendant's address and delivering them personally, with the service being deemed complete two business days after posting. The plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the application were awarded to the plaintiff.