Westpac Banking Corporation v McLean

In the matter of Westpac Banking Corporation v McLean, the dispute arose from a default on a loan secured by a mortgage over property. The plaintiff, Westpac Banking Corporation, sought an order for possession of the property after the defendant, Ms McLean, admitted default in repayment. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the allegation that the loans had been securitised constituted a valid defence to Westpac's claim for possession.

The court examined the defence of securitisation in light of previous cases, including Westpac Banking Corporation v Mason and National Australia Bank v Norman. In these cases, the courts had held that the securitisation of a loan did not deprive the bank of its right to enforce the loan agreement and seek possession of the mortgaged property. In the present case, the court found that Ms McLean had not provided any evidence to support the claim that the loans had been securitised. Consequently, the court determined that the securitisation defence was without merit and did not prevent Westpac from enforcing its rights under the loan agreement and mortgage.

Given the admission of default and the lack of a valid defence, the court ruled in favour of Westpac Banking Corporation. The final order of the court was that Westpac was entitled to an order for possession of the property. The court's decision reinforced the principle that the legal interests of the parties in such proceedings are governed by the loan agreement and the registered mortgage, regardless of any alleged securitisation.