In Puglia v RHG Mortgage Corporation Ltd [2013] WASCA 143 the court rejected the securitization argument contended by the appellants, alleging that:
“the respondent had ‘sold’ the mortgage and failed to disclose this, and the applicants had not received any consideration from the respondent, and that is why the applicants ‘have to be paid by bill of exchange’.
The court noted:
“… the applicants’ contention that the respondent had sold mortgages to NAB provided, and provides, no arguable defence: see, eg, Westpac Banking Corporation v Mason [2011] NSWSC 1241; RHG Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Astolfi [2011] NSWSC 1526; McLean v Westpac Banking Corporation [2012] WASCA 152.”
.
- https://jade.io/article/296691
- https://freemandelusion.files.wordpress.com/2020/10/puglia-v-rhg-mortgage-corporation-ltd-2013-wasca-143.pdf
