Perpetual Trustees Victoria v Tatjana Erdogan [2010] NSWSC 1037

The borrower in this case could not be served so the lender sought and obtained an order for substituted service. Upon being served with the notice to vacate, the borrower sought to have the orders for substitute service set aside. The main argument was that the lender knew of a post office box of the borrower and did not disclose that to the court in its application for an order for substitute service. The judge rejected this argument, noting that all the lender had to prove was that it was not practicable to personally serve the borrower as service on a post office is not satisfactory personal service, the omission was irrelevant.

Click here to read the full judgment

Scroll to Top