PPSA - first case about removal of a PPSR registration

  • Author : Bill Stark - 19-12-2013

In what appears to be the first reported case on the attempted removal of a registration on the PPS Register, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the refusal by the PPS Registrar to amend a registration.

The decision [Cirillo and Registrar of Personal Property Securities [2013] AATA 733] was handed down on 11 October 2013.

Background
GE Personal Finance loaned money to the borrower (Mr Cirillo) in 2007 to assist with the purchase of a Holden Commodore (the personal property). The loan was re-financed in 2010, and the security in the personal property remained on foot.  

GE Personal Finance's security interest in the personal property was registered on a NSW Register (as noted, the loan commenced before the commencement of the Personal Property Securities Act (PPSA) in 2012).

On 24 December 2011, GE Personal Finance sold a number of debts, including the one in question, to another financier.


 

In 2012, after the PPS Register commenced, the NSW Registration was migrated onto the PPS Register.
 In March 2012, GE Personal Finance notified the change of secured parties to the Registrar of the PPS Register.

In July 2012, the borrower sought to remove the Registration.  

The grounds claimed by the borrower included allegations regarding:
(a) the validity of the original loan agreement;
(b) the validity of the subsequent assignment; and
(c) the calculation of the debt.

The new financier's response to the notice was that the registration was valid and should not be removed. The new financier provided evidence of the original loan, the assignment, the repayments that were due (and not made) and the current balance owing.  Accordingly, the Registrar refused to remove or amend the Registration on the grounds that the amendment demand was not authorised under the PPSA.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal agreed with the Registrar’s decision, finding that the borrower continued to owe a debt, secured by the personal property, which debt had been lawfully sold to the new financier and the Registration had been appropriately amended.  

Therefore, the AAT concluded that the borrower's amendment demand was not authorised.

In this case, the keeping of proper records (both of the finance contract and the debt owed), and the accurate documentation of the transfer of the security interest in question by GE Personal Finance and the new financiers were important factors in allowing the Registrar and the AAT to reach their decision. 

About the Author

Bill Stark

Recent Posts

Who is responsible when external cladding fails in an apartment tower during a fire?

Bill Stark Date: 10-01-2020

Valuations in Leasing Part 1: Options to Renew

Bill Stark Date: 30-11-2018

Valuations in Leasing: Renewals, Market Rent Reviews and Valuation Pitfalls

Bill Stark Date: 15-11-2018

When will there be a concluded lease, and what compensation will be payable if the landlord wrongfully breaches the lease?

Bill Stark Date: 23-05-2018

Can a lease cease to be covered by the Retail Leases Act 2003 during its current term?

Bill Stark Date: 16-04-2018

Can I challenge an expert valuer's rental determination made under section 37 of the Retail Leases Act 2003?

Bill Stark Date: 16-04-2018