V & v

This matter concerned an application by the applicant, V, for an order for substituted service of originating process on the respondent, v. The parties were formerly married, and the dispute related to property settlement proceedings. V sought to serve the application on v by way of substituted service, as direct service had proven unsuccessful.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it had the power to grant an order for substituted service in circumstances where the applicant had not demonstrated that the respondent had actual knowledge of the proceedings. The Court was required to consider the relevant rules of court governing substituted service and the principles applied by courts when exercising such discretion.

Rowlands J noted that the rules of court concerning substituted service generally require an applicant to demonstrate that the proposed method of service is likely to bring the originating process to the notice of the respondent. While actual knowledge is not always a prerequisite, the Court must be satisfied that the proposed substituted service is a reasonable substitute for personal service and is likely to come to the respondent's attention. In this instance, the Court found that the evidence before it did not establish a sufficient likelihood that the proposed method of substituted service would result in v becoming aware of the proceedings. Consequently, the application for substituted service was dismissed.