I recently presented a paper to Leo Cussens during a half day PPSA conference on the topic recent developments in the PPSA. A full copy of the paper can be found at this link: Leo Cussens – PPSA – 23.5.19
The PPSA is relatively new (for a law at least) and so the Courts are still working through the legislation as cases come before them. Many recent cases consider relatively straight forward aspects of the legislation.
As such, they are not of great significance other than as a demonstration of principle. In the matter of O’Keefe Heneghan Pty Ltd (in liq) & Ors (2018) NSWSC 1958 (O’Keefe) is one of those cases, considering the continuing super-priority of approved deposit taking institutions (ADI) (usually banks or non-bank financial institutions) under the Act.
One significant development has been repeated demonstration of the drastic consequences of failing to identify a grantor by its proper identification number, leading to a lot of decisions considering efforts to overcome such errors. The problem was identified to drastic effect for the secured creditor in OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd (administrators appointed) (2017) NSWSC 21.
There has been a rash of subsequent cases grappling with the same issue from different angles, and the recent case of Psyche Holdings Pty Limited (2018) NSWSC 1254 (Psyche) is one of them.
In the matter of O’Keeffe Heneghan Pty Ltd (in liq) & Ors (2018) NSWSC 1958
Takeout: An ADI has super priority over ADI Accounts under its control, even where it has failed to register its security interest, since it is able to perfect its security interest by control of the ADI account. That follows since the account is held with it and is at all times the balance is under its direct control. An ADI which has perfected by control is entitled to follow its security interest out of the account into the control of others without losing its priority. Secured creditors who are not ADIs should be on notice that their priority will virtually always be secondary when competing against an ADI which has perfected by control, even after registration of their secured interest.
In the matter of Psyche Holdings Pty Limited  NSWSC 1254
Takeout: It is very important to register a security interest in accordance with the requirements of the PPSA, particularly with regard to time limits and the form of application. That is particularly so with regard to use of an ABN or ACN in appropriate cases. If a security interest is not validly registered within time limits set by the PPSA, the secured party may lose priority or may lose the interest completely. While the Court has a discretion to order an extension of time for registration, the ability of the Court to grant extensions is limited and uncertain. Practitioners should not assume that an extension of time will be available on application to the court.
I also mentioned three other cases of some note.
G. Murch Nominees Pty Ltd v Paul David Annesley & Ors  VSC 107: registration of baseless security interest by mortgagor after purchase of property from mortgagee: steps taken to restrain further registrations and remove invalid registrations.
Rubis v Garrett as Trustee of the Andrew Garrett Family Trust Trading as Dynamic Commercial Workforce Solutions (No 2)  FCA 2011 – Vexatious baseless registrations against 46 alleged grantors with whom registering party had no security relationship, including a Judge in separate proceedings. Whether Registrar had breached duty not to permit vexatious registrations to be registered, in circumstances where the Registrar knew vexatious history of lodging party.
Toll Energy and Marine Logistics Pty Ltd v Conlon Murphy Pty Ltd  FCA 532: extension of time for registration of a PMSI under s588FM of the Corporations Act (not insolvent, no objections)