Lender fails in attempt to have fees paid due to a short term loan transaction not proceeding. The Supreme Court of NSW dismissed the lender’s claim of fees and expenses.
In Interim Finance v Bright Beginnings Learning Centre Glendenning  the Court found the lender did not have a caveatable interest in the security property. Further, the Court ordered the removal of the caveat registered over the property.
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of Queensland dismissed an application for the removal of caveats over a number of properties.
In DT & MF Holdings v Ascendia Accountants , the Applicants needed to establish that there existed no serious question to be tried. All attempts to do this failed.
The issue of an Assignment of Mortgage came under dispute in a recent Supreme Court of Western Australia ruling. Was the transfer of loans to a third party valid?
In La Trobe v MDVest , the borrowers disputed three prior judgments in favour of the lender. They contended that the lender was not entitled to judgment in each action. The borrowers presented a number of reasons for resisting judgment, including the issue of Assignment.
In ordinary mortgagee possession cases the problem of mortgagors re-entering the property and being a hindrance, is on the rise. What is the way forward?
A recent Supreme Court of Victoria ruling considers how to restrain a mortgagor from another re-entry of property under possession of the mortgagee. Does the Court have power to issue a restraining order?
What exactly is lender’s mortgage insurance (LMI) and whose interests does it protect?
According to a report released by two of Australia’s largest mortgage insurance providers, about 70% of borrowers believe LMI protects them in the event of a default. This is not correct. LMI is an insurance designed to protect the lender.
Equitable charges came under the spotlight in a recent NSW Supreme Court ruling. In Morris Finance Ltd v Free  NSWSC the Court analysed the wording of a lease agreement. Did it contain language necessary to create an equitable charge?
The Lender looked to enforce the charge by seeking orders for judicial sale of property and ancillary orders for possession.
An England and Wales High Court decision ruled in favour of the creditor when considering the use of the equitable doctrine of marshalling debt. However, on appeal to the Supreme Court, the decision was overturned.
The doctrine of marshalling operates in the same way in Australia, therefore lenders should be aware of the recent rulings.
Attempts by Borrowers to dodge Bank’s recovery of possession claim with an unlikely counterclaim backfires.
In Australian and New Zealand Bank Group Ltd v Beamond & Anor  QSC 208 the Supreme Court of Queensland rules in favour of Bank’s right to recovery of possession of mortgaged properties. The Court also dismisses all counterclaims submitted by Borrowers.
Mortgage fraud is of growing concern within the context of the Australian economy.
UBS, the investment bank, warns that up to a third of Australians are lying on their loan applications. Surveys conducted in 2016 and 2017 confirm this concerning trend. What can lenders do to protect their interests?
In a District Court of Queensland decision, a lender gets an enforcement warrant even though more than two years have passed since obtaining judgment for possession of the security property.
In the recent ruling in Westpac Banking Corporation v Keppel & Anor  QDC 223 the Court takes a cautionary approach. But the lender, in due course, gains the upper hand.