Surviving the Personal Property Securities Act (2009) Cth

Australia has new national legislation - the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) and the Personal Property Securities Regulations 2010 – which is expected to commence operating in February 2012. Previous personal property securities legislation was very complex, with more than seventy pieces of legislation in the states and territories, and more than forty registers. This reform package is the culmination of a process that began many years ago and various drafts have been the subject of much investigation and consultation. This legislation rationalises previous laws and bring about substantial changes to this area of law. This paper seeks to explain the principal changes and their implications.

In focus : the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth)

Australia has new national legislation - the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) and the Personal Property Securities Regulations 2010 – which commenced operation on 30 January 2012. Previous personal property securities legislation was very complex, with more than seventy pieces of legislation in the states and territories, and more than forty registers. This reform package is the culmination of a process that began many years ago and various drafts have been the subject of much investigation and consultation. This legislation rationalises previous laws and bring about substantial changes to this area of law. This paper seeks to explain the principal changes and their implications.

Outline of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth)

Australia has new national legislation - the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) and the Personal Property Securities Regulations 2010 – which commenced operation on 30 January 2012. The policy objectives of the new legislation are to increase certainty and consistency and to reduce complexity and cost. To achieve this, the legislation treats like transactions alike, by focusing on substance over form, and so removes distinctions between security interests which have been based on their structure. Differences based on the location or nature of the secured property and the debtor’s legal form, as an individual or company, have also disappeared. We now have one single national scheme and one national electronic registration system for all security interests throughout Australia. The Act applies to security interests in tangible and intangible personal property, including those based on some form of title retention which are not security interests under the general law. This legislation rationalises previous laws and bring about substantial changes to this area of law. This paper seeks to explain the principal changes and their implications.

The Proposed Commonwealth Personal Property Securities Act 2008

Inspired by similar reforms introduced in New Zealand, Canada and the United States, the Commonwealth, with the co-operation of the States, seeks in the Personal Property Securities Bill 2008 (the Bill) to introduce a central repository of recorded information reflecting particular security interests in personal property in Australia. Specifically, the interest recorded is an interest in personal property provided for by a transaction that in substance secures the payment or the performance of an obligation. In addition to providing a notification of the use of the personal property as collateral to secure the payment of monies or the performance of an obligation, the Bill proposes to introduce a regime of prioritising interests in the same collateral. Central to this prioritisation are the concepts of a ‘perfected security interests’and ‘unperfected security interests’. Relevantly, a perfected security interest in collateral has priority over an unperfected security interest in the same collateral. The proposed mechanisms rely on the fundamental integer of personal property, which is defined as any property other than land. Recognising that property may take a tangible as well as an intangible form, the Bill reflects an appreciation of the fact that some property may have a tangible form which may act as collateral, and simultaneously the same property may involve other property, intangible property in the form of intellectual property rights, which in their own right may be the subject of a‘security agreement’. An example set out in the Commentary on the Consultation Draft of the Bill (the Commentary), indicates the practical implications involving certain property which have multiple profiles for the purposes of the Bill. This submission is concerned with the presumptions made in relation to the interphase between tangible property and intangible property arising from the same personal property, as set out in s 30 of the Bill.

UCPR r548 - requirement for report or proof of evidence intended to be relied on at trial

In Oates v Cootes Tanker Service Pty Ltd [2005] QSC 213, Fryberg J considered some interesting questions of construction in relation to the rule requiring the plaintiff to provide a statement of loss and damage in personal injuries proceedings (UCPR r 548) and the rule in relation to the giving of expert evidence (UCPR r427)

Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act : strike three

The Tourism, Racing and Fair Trading (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2002 (“the Act”) which was passed on 18 April 2002 contains a number of significant amendments relevant to the operation of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000. The main changes relevant to property transactions are: (i) Changes to the process for appointment of a real estate agent and consolidation of the appointment forms; (ii) Additions to the disclosure obligation of agents and property developers; (iii) Simplification of the process for commencing the cooling off period; (iv) Alteration of the common law position concerning when the parties are bound by a contract; (v) Removal of the requirement for a seller’s signature on the warning statement to be witnessed; (vi) Retrospective amendment of s 170 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997; (vii) Inclusion of a new power to allow inspectors to enter the place of business of a licensee or a marketeer without consent and without a warrant; and (viii) Inclusion of a new power for inspectors to require documents to be produced by marketeers. The majority of the amendments are effective from the date of assent, 24 April 2002, however, some of the amendments do not commence until a date fixed by proclamation. No proclamation has been made at the time of writing (2 May 2002). Where the amendments have not commenced this will be noted in the article. Before providing clients with advice, practitioners should carefully check proclamation details.

Women and ADR

Alternative dispute resolution, or ‘ADR’, is defined by the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council as: … an umbrella term for processes, other than judicial determination, in which an impartial person assists those in a dispute to resolve the issues between them. ADR is commonly used as an abbreviation for alternative dispute resolution, but can also be used to mean assisted or appropriate dispute resolution. Some also use the term ADR to include approaches that enable parties to prevent or manage their own disputes without outside assistance. A broad range of ADR processes are used in legal practice contexts, including, for example, arbitration, conciliation, mediation, negotiation, conferencing, case appraisal and neutral evaluation. Hybrid processes are also used, such as med-arb in which the practitioner starts by using mediation, and then shifts to using arbitration. ADR processes generally fall into one of three general categories: facilitative, advisory or determinative. In a facilitative process, the ADR practitioner has the role of assisting the parties to reach a mutually agreeable outcome to the dispute by helping them to identify the issues in dispute, and to develop a range of options for resolving the dispute. Mediation and facilitated negotiation are examples of facilitative processes. ADR processes that are advisory involve the practitioner appraising the dispute, providing advice as to the facts of the dispute, the law and then, in some cases, articulating possible or appropriate outcomes and how they might be achieved. Case appraisal and neutral evaluation are examples of advisory processes. In a determinative ADR process, the practitioner evaluates the dispute (which may include the hearing of formal evidence from the parties) and makes a determination. Arbitration is an example of a determinative ADR process. The use of ADR processes has increased significantly in recent years. Indeed, in a range of contemporary legal contexts the use of an ADR process is now required before a party is able to file a matter in court. For example, Juliet Behrens discusses in Chapter 11 of this book how the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) now effectively mandates attendance at pre-filing family dispute resolution in parenting disputes. At the state level, in Queensland, for example, attendance at a conciliation conference can be required in anti-discrimination matters, and is encouraged in residential tenancy matters, and in personal injuries matters the parties must attend a preliminary compulsory conference. Certain ADR processes are used more commonly in the resolution of particular disputes. For example, in family law contexts, mediation and conciliation are generally used because they provide the parties with flexibility in terms of process and outcome while still ensuring that the negotiations occur in a positive, structured and facilitated framework. In commercial contexts, arbitration and neutral evaluation are often used because they can provide the parties with a determination of the dispute that is factually and legally principled, but which is also private and more timely than if the parties went to court. Women, as legal personalities and citizens of society, can find themselves involved in any sort of legal dispute, and therefore all forms of ADR are relevant to women. Perhaps most commonly, however, women come into contact with facilitative ADR processes. For example, through involvement in family law disputes women will encounter family dispute resolution processes, such as mediation. In this chapter, therefore, the focus is on facilitative ADR processes and, particularly, issues for women in terms of their participation in such processes. The aim of this chapter is to provide legal practitioners with an understanding of issues for women in ADR to inform your approach to representing women clients in such processes, and to guide you in preparing women clients for their participation in ADR. The chapter begins with a consideration of the ways in which facilitative ADR processes are positive for women participants. Next, some of the disadvantages for women in ADR are explored. Finally, the chapter offers ways in which legal practitioners can effectively prepare women clients for participation in ADR. Before embarking on a discussion of issues for women in ADR, it is important to acknowledge that women’s experiences in these dispute resolution environments, whilst often sharing commonalities, are diverse and informed by a range of factors specific to each individual woman; for example, her race or socio-economic background. This discussion, therefore, addresses some common issues for women in ADR that are fundamentally gender based. It must be noted, however, that providing advice to women clients about participating in ADR processes requires legal practitioners to have a very good understanding of the client as an individual, and her particular needs and interests. Some sources of diversity are discussed in Chapters 13, 14 and 15.

Hamcor Pty Ltd v Queensland

The Ipp Report recommendation that for claims for personal injury and death arising from the negligent performance or non-performance of a public function based upon a policy decision, could not establish negligence unless the public authority was so unreasonable that no reasonable public authority in the same position would have made it, was adopted in different ways by all jurisdictions except South Australia and the Northern Territory.1 This introduced the public law concept of Wednesbury unreasonableness to civil liability which caused much academic debate.2 Section 36 of the Queensland provides...

Golf can be dangerous : be forewarned!

In Pollard v Trude [2008] QSC 119 (20 May 2008) the plaintiff claimed for personal injuries suffered when he was struck by a golf ball during the course of a tournament. The plaintiff was a member of a group of four, playing in a two-day tournament at Indooroopilly Golf Club. All four players had teed off at the second hole of the course and when the defendant took his second shot; his ball struck one of the trees bordering the fairway and deflected, hitting the plaintiff who was waiting to take his third stroke. As the ball was in flight, the defendant had called out "Watch out Errol", or words to that effect, to the plaintiff. The plaintiff suffered injury to his eye, leaving his vision impaired. The plaintiff sued in negligence, alleging that by failing to shout "fore" as is traditionally done in golf, the defendant had failed to warn the appellant and this was a breach of their duty. The claim in negligence was dismissed by the Queensland Supreme Court, holding that there had been no breach of the duty.

Wrongful birth : assessment of damages in 2013

More than 10 years have passed since the High Court of Australia confirmed the recoverability of damages for the cost of raising a child, in the well-known decision in Cattanach v Melchior. Yet a number of aspects of the assessment of such “wrongful birth” damages had not been the subject of a comprehensive court ruling. The recent decision in Waller v James was widely anticipated as potentially providing a comprehensive discussion of the principles relevant to the assessment of damages in wrongful birth cases. However, given a finding on causation adverse to the plaintiffs, the trial judge held that it was unnecessary to determine the quantum of damages. Justice Hislop did, however, make some comments in relation to the assessment of damages. This article focuses mostly on the argued damages issues relating to the costs of raising the child and the trial judge’s comments regarding the same. The Waller v James claim was issued before the enactment of the Health Care Liability Act 2001 (NSW) and the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). Although the case was therefore decided according to the “common law”, as explained below, his Honour’s comments may be of relevance to more recent claims governed by the civil liability legislation in New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia.

Wrongful birth assessment of damages : judgment pending

Damages issues regarding the costs of raising the child argued in a case currently before the NSW Supreme Court - Waller v James litigation pre-dated the Health Care Liability Act 2001 and the Civil Liability Act 2002.

Disclosure of documents and limitation of actions

This article considers the decisions in Stephan v NRMA Insurance Limited [2001]QDC 002 and Bertha v Dragut [2001] QDC 003

Australian Commercial Law

Australian Commercial Law offers a concise yet comprehensive introduction to commercial law in Australia. The textbook provides a thorough and detailed discussion of a variety of topics in commercial law such as agency, bailment, the sale of goods, the transfer of property and the Personal Property Securities Act. The book also offers a detailed overview of topics within the Australian Consumer Law that are now relevant to commercial practice such as unconscionable conduct, consumer guarantees, and misleading and deceptive conduct. Written in a clear and accessible style, each chapter features key points and further reading to enhance students' understanding. Significant cases are discussed in detail and include excerpts from judgments to illustrate points of law. Australian Commercial Law is an indispensable resource for students who are seeking a comprehensive understanding of commercial law.

It might be yours there but it’s not down here: Issues arising under the PPSA in cross-border transactions

As a relatively new piece of legislation, the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) is yet to be the subject of much significant judicial consideration. Whilst the position of the Australian courts is becoming clearer in relation to domestic disputes, parties to cross-border transactions continue to encounter an alarming number of uncertainties with respect to the enforcement and maintenance of their security interests. This article considers the relevant problematic provisions of the PPSA and considers them in light of the authorities dealing with corresponding legislation in other jurisdictions. It then attempts to provide some guidance and suggestions as to the best means of protecting security interests in cross-border transactions.