Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Li

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia has applied for an order to permit substituted service of a claim and a statement of claim against Ms Li. The bank claims that it lent money to Ms Li, secured by a mortgage over a property in Stretton. The bank alleges that Ms Li has defaulted under the loan agreements and is seeking judgment for over $852,000 and recovery of possession of the property. The bank's attempts to serve the claim and statement of claim on Ms Li have been unsuccessful, despite efforts to contact her via phone, SMS, and in-person visits to the property. The bank has not been able to effect personal service on Ms Li, and it is presumed that she is evading service.

The court must decide whether an order for substituted service should be granted. Under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR), an order for substituted service can be made if personal service cannot be effected and if the proposed method of substituted service will likely bring the proceedings to the defendant's attention. The court found that personal service could not be effected and that the proposed method of substituted service would likely bring the proceedings to Ms Li's attention.

The court ordered that personal service of the claim and statement of claim be dispensed with and that the bank effect service on Ms Li by delivering copies of the documents to the male person who purported to be Ms Li's husband at the property, posting the documents via pre-paid post to the property, notifying Ms Li by SMS that the documents have been posted and delivered, and sending a copy of the claim and statement of claim to Ms Li by SMS. The court also ordered that service of the claim and statement of claim on Ms Li be deemed to have occurred five business days after the last step in the substituted service process is completed. The court ordered that the bank's costs of the application be its costs in the proceeding.