Secure Funding Pty Ltd v Ali - [2025] FedCFamC2G 1264

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Secure Funding Pty Ltd v Ali [2025] FedCFamC2G 1264

File number(s): SYG 3057 of 2024

Judgment of: JUDGE LAING

Date of judgment: 6 August 2025

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for substituted service – whether it is impracticable to serve documents by hand – whether the proposed methods of service will result in the documents coming to the attention of the respondents – orders for substituted service made

Legislation:
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 6.06, 6.14 & 6.15

Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth)

Cases cited:
Foxe v Brown [1984] HCA 69; (1984) 59 ALJR 186

Re Williams (1968) 13 FLR 10

Royal Express Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (Administrator Appointed)v Huang, in the matter of Royal Express Pty Ltd (No 3) [2021] FCA 611

Division: General

Number of paragraphs: 17

Date of hearing: 6 August 2025

Place: Sydney

Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms C Simonidis of Agility Law Group Pty Ltd

First Respondent: No appearance

Second Respondent: No appearance
ORDERS

SYG 3057 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
SECURE FUNDING PTY LTD ABN 25 081 982 872

Applicant

AND:
JABER ABDULLAH AL ALI

First Respondent

AMY VUONG

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE LAING

DATE OF ORDER:

6 AUGUST 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to rr 6.06(2)(b) and 6.14 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (GFL Rules), the requirement for personal service be dispensed with, and that a sealed copy of the Originating Application filed on 25 November 2024, the Application in a Proceeding filed on 15 May 2025, the Amended Application filed on 3 June 2025, together which each Affidavit filed in this proceeding and the Orders that have been made in this proceeding to date (together the Relevant Documents), be served upon the first respondent by:
(a)sending the Relevant Documents by email to the First Respondent’s Email Addresses; and
(b)a text (SMS) message being sent to the First Respondent’s Mobile Number stating that the Relevant Documents have been sent by email to the First Respondent’s Email Addresses.

2.Pursuant to rr 6.06(2)(b) and 6.14 of the GFL Rules, any further documents to be served upon the first respondent in this proceeding may be served upon the first respondent by:
(a)sending the documents by email to the First Respondent’s Email Addresses; and
(b)a text (SMS) message being sent to the First Respondent’s Mobile Number stating that the documents in question have been sent by email to the First Respondent’s Email Addresses.

3.Pursuant to rr 6.06(2)(b) and 6.14 of the GFL Rules, the requirement for personal service be dispensed with, and a sealed copy of the Relevant Documents be served upon the second respondent by:
(a)sending the documents by email to the Second Respondent’s Email Address; and
(b)a text (SMS) message being sent to the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Secure Funding Pty Ltd v Ali

Details

AGLC: Secure Funding Pty Ltd v Ali [2025] FedCFamC2G 1264
Case: [2025] FedCFamC2G 1264
Decision Date: 6 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Secure Funding Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, sought substituted service of its originating process on the respondents, Ali and others, in an action for debt recovery. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The plaintiff sought substituted service as it was impracticable to serve the documents by hand due to the respondents' unavailability. The court had to decide whether it was indeed impracticable to serve the documents by hand and if the proposed methods of service would effectively ensure the documents came to the respondents' attention.

The court considered the evidence presented regarding the impracticality of personal service and the effectiveness of the proposed methods. The court noted that the respondents were elusive and had not responded to previous attempts at service. The court also assessed the proposed methods of service, including electronic communication methods, and found them to be appropriate given the effectiveness of the phone numbers and email addresses provided. The court concluded that the proposed methods would likely result in the documents coming to the respondents' attention.

Having considered the evidence and the proposed methods of service, the court found that it was impracticable to serve the documents by hand. The court also found that the proposed methods of service, particularly the use of electronic communication, would effectively ensure the documents were brought to the respondents' attention. The court granted the application for substituted service and ordered that the documents be served via the proposed methods. The court emphasised the importance of the effectiveness of the contact details provided and the need for ongoing monitoring to ensure the respondents were served.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

At the hearing of the substituted service application, some issues were raised regarding the form of the orders originally proposed. In particular, the original orders proposed that each document in the proceeding be sent (inter alia) on an ongoing basis to residential addresses at which it does not appear that the respondents now reside. After some discussion at hearing, an amended form of orders was proposed by the applicant. Those orders provided for service of documents utilising electronic means of communication. I am satisfied those orders are appropriate, in circumstances where (a) the proposed methods of communication include the use of phone numbers that have proven effective for contact during the currency of this proceeding and (b) the email addresses proposed to be utilised appear not to have been decommissioned and the one associated with the second respondent has been used during the currency of the proceeding.CONCLUSION In the foregoing circumstances, I am persuaded that orders to the effect sought by the applicant regarding service ought to be made.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	SYG 3057 of 2024
Judgment of:	JUDGE LAING
Date of judgment:	6 August 2025
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for substituted service – whether it is impracticable to serve documents by hand – whether the proposed methods of service will result in the documents coming to the attention of the respondents – orders for substituted service made
Legislation:	Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 6.06, 6.14 & 6.15 Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth)
Cases cited:	Foxe v Brown [1984] HCA 69; (1984) 59 ALJR 186 Re Williams (1968) 13 FLR 10 Royal Express Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (Administrator Appointed)v Huang, in the matter of Royal Express Pty Ltd (No 3) [2021] FCA 611
Division:	General
Number of paragraphs:	17
Date of hearing:	6 August 2025
Place:	Sydney
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Ms C Simonidis of Agility Law Group Pty Ltd
First Respondent:	No appearance
Second Respondent:	No appearance

SYG 3057 of 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	SECURE FUNDING PTY LTD ABN 25 081 982 872 Applicant
AND:	JABER ABDULLAH AL ALI First Respondent AMY VUONG Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE LAING
DATE OF ORDER:	6 AUGUST 2025