Monas v Perpetual Trustees Victoria Limited [2011] NSWCA 417
Non-strict compliance with s 80 of the Consumer Credit (NSW) Code does not invalidate enforcement proceedings provided the notice reasonably conveys the required information and is not misleading; any procedural defect constitutes an irregularity, not a nullity, and may be cured by nunc pro tunc order.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 21 December 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['section 80 Default Notices' 'validity of Notices' 'consequences of Non Compliance' 'nunc Pro Tunc Authorisation' 'hardship Provisions' 'transitional Provisions']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the default notice complied with s 80 of the Consumer Credit (NSW) Code 1996' 'Consequences of non-compliance with s 80 notice requirements' 'Court’s ability to authorise enforcement proceedings nunc pro tunc' 'Application of hardship provisions and transitional provisions to maximum amount of credit']
Ratio Decidendi
Non-strict compliance with s 80 of the Consumer Credit (NSW) Code does not invalidate enforcement proceedings provided the notice reasonably conveys the required information and is not misleading; any procedural defect constitutes an irregularity, not a nullity, and may be cured by nunc pro tunc order.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- ['Appeal dismissed.' "Appellant to pay the respondent's costs."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment