RHG Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Summerfield

[2019] NSWCA 44

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Mortgages and Securities
2. › Mortgages
3. › Mortgagee's duties, rights and remedies
4. › Entitlement to possession
5. › Whether default established
6. › Effect of requirement for notice under National Credit Code
7. › Whether mortgagee can rely on default not referred to in default notice
8. › National Credit Code (Cth), s 88
1. Contracts
2. › Terms
3. › Construction
4. › Settlement agreement following possession
5. › Whether 'condition' was a condition of retaining possession or a contractual obligation
6. › Whether failure to pay by stipulated date entitled mortgagee to resume possession
1. Evidence
2. › Proof
3. › Evidentiary certificates
4. › Minimum requirements of 'certificate or formal statement' under loan documentation
5. › Whether routine periodical monthly statements of account constitute a certificate or formal statement

Quick Take

The Court held that default notices under s 88 of the National Credit Code specifically identify the particular default relied upon for enforcement proceedings; a mortgagee cannot commence proceedings based on a default not referred to in the notice, even if that default is otherwise established.

Case Details

Citation[2019] NSWCA 44

CourtNSWCA

JurisdictionNew South Wales

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Relies on2

2018RHG Mortgage Corporation Ltd v SummerfieldNSWSC 972
2016RHG Mortgage Corporation Limited v Summerfield & AnorNSWSC 1595

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in