In Westpac Banking Corporation v McLean, [2012] WASC 182 the respondent resisted foreclosure of her property, arguing it had been “securitized” and could not be enforced. The court rejected this defence because the loan had never been securitized, and concluded on the basis of prior jurisprudence that even if the mortgage had been securitized that was irrelevant to the bank enforcing its contract..
Click to access westpac-banking-corporation-v-mclean-2012-wasc-182.pdf
The decision was appealed in McLean v Westpac Banking Corporation [2012] WASCA 152 where the court upheld the decision and concluded none of the grounds of appeal had a reasonable prospect of success and the appeal was dismissed.
Click to access mclean-v-westpac-banking-corporation-2012-wasca-152.pdf
The appellant persisted, in McLean v Westpac Banking Corporation, [2013] FCA 126 she argued that a bill of exchange had already paid the debt, with a $1 postage stamp attached, and a “Default and Liability Clause & Notice”. The court rejected this was a payment, and dismissed the application.
Click to access mclean-v-westpac-banking-corporation-2013-fca-126.pdf
- https://jade.io/article/266014 https://freemandelusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/westpac-banking-corporation-v-mclean-2012-wasc-182.pdf
- https://jade.io/article/269618 https://freemandelusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/mclean-v-westpac-banking-corporation-2012-wasca-152.pdf
- https://jade.io/article/290411 https://freemandelusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/mclean-v-westpac-banking-corporation-2013-fca-126.pdf
You must log in to post a comment.