In an effort to better understand the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (“PPSA”)  I endeavoured to apply it to a seemingly simple set of facts. The scenario is adapted from facts outlined in this blog article. I have massaged those facts to suit my purpose. This is what I found.

Goods Supplied On Credit - Notice of Registration Not Given
The Business the subject of this scenario (whom I will call The Grantor) relevantly involved purchasing some of its trading stock on credit from other businesses. It had three registrations on the Personal Property Securities Register (“PPSR”) against it. It knew about one of them as it had received notice about it, in accordance with the PPSA requirements. (S.157)

The Grantor received goods supplied on credit. The Suppliers of those goods registered their interests on the PPSR. However The Suppliers did not provide The Grantor with any notification of those registrations, nor did The Grantor receive Notice about those two registrations in any other form. Therefore The Grantor had no idea that the registered security interests existed in respect of those supplied goods.

What is the significance of no notice of registration of the Security Interest by the Suppliers being received by the Grantor?

The statement holder who is given a verification statement, under section 156, in relation to a registration event concerning a registration, must ensure that a notice of the statement, in the approved form, is given to the following persons as soon as reasonably practicable after the time of the registration event:
(a)     a person registered as a grantor in the registration immediately before the time of the registration event;
(b)     a person registered as a grantor in the registration immediately after the time of the registration event. (See s.155 & s.157).

Whilst S.157 (4) says contravention of s.157 (1) is a s.13 of the Privacy Act 1988 breach, the PPSA appears silent at this point on whether the failure to give the requisite notice defeats the priority claim of the Supplier over the Grantor in relation to the secured interest property.

S275 requires the Secured Party to provide certain information relating to the subject security interest to the Grantor.

- How do you make a request under s.275 if you do not know a security interest registration exists?
- How do you know to search?
- Are you obligated to search?

Perfection
How is perfection of the interest in personal property affected by the failure of the Secured Party to give the requisite Notice to the Grantor?

If the subject goods are sold in the ordinary course of business:
- Will a bona fide purchaser for value without notice take the goods?
- Will The Grantor be liable to The Supplier for the value of the subject goods?

A Bona Fide Purchaser for Value of the subject goods takes them free of any Security Interest, if the personal property was sold in the ordinary course of the business of the seller, which was selling personal property of that kind. (See s.46)

Further, Registration of data does not constitute constructive notice of the existence of the subject security interest. (See s.300)

In relation to the subject secured personal property, the rights of the Secured Party are subrogated to the rights (if any) of the Transferor and any predecessor of the Transferor (including the right to receive any part of the purchase price for the property which has not been paid). (See s.53)

The Suppliers claim the proceeds of sale from The Grantor
Proceeds is defined in s.31.

Constructive knowledge is defined in s.297 and as I said earlier Registration of data does not constitute constructive notice of the existence of the subject security interest. (See s.300) On these facts there appears to be no reason to impose constructive knowledge of the security interest upon The Grantor or the Bona Fide Purchaser For Value Without Notice.  Any Priorities argument here would be resolved against the Suppliers.

There appears to be no adverse effect on registration from failing to give notice of the registration of a security interest to The Grantor.

The effect on the security interest of that failure to give notice of the registration of a security interest to The Grantor is a little different.  The priority of The Suppliers seems to be lost to The Grantor where the obligation to search cannot be imposed upon The Grantor or The Purchaser.

The Suppliers may have other opportunities within the law to pursue their rights against The Grantor for the proceeds of sale, but that is not the subject of this piece. This piece is constrained to the PPSA and its impact on the situation.

Conclusion
If the foregoing assessment is correct, is that outcome desirable?
Is another outcome more desirable?

Ross Bowler LLB
 
 
In theory serving Court documents is a pretty simple process. In practice at times the process of serving Court documents can be anything but simple. On such occasions practitioners might look to an application for substituted service as a possible resolution for their service difficulties.

Substituted Service
Rule 116 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (“the Rules”) permits substituted service.

Where Ordinary Service Is Impracticable
If it is impracticable to serve a document in a manner required by the Rules, the Court may make an order for substituted service.  Such order may be in respect of Originating Process documents and other documents. It can even extend to documents for which personal service is not required.

Mode of Service To Be Specified
In ordering substituted service, the Court must specify a mode of service it considers reasonably likely to bring the document to the notice of the party being served, if practicable.

An order for Substituted Service may specify that the document is taken to be served on the happening of an event or at the end of a specified time.

Substituted Service applies to service outside the jurisdiction, as well as inside the jurisdiction.

What The Applicant Must Show
In order to be successful the Applicant / Plaintiff must show that:
- There was a reasonable attempt to serve the Respondent / Defendant in the usual way under the Rules;
- It is impracticable or practically impossible to effect service in the way required in Chapter 5 of the Rules;
- Using those reasonable efforts the Applicant / Plaintiff is unable to serve the Defendant / Respondent personally at the date on which the application for substituted service is made;
- The proposed mode of substituted service is reasonably likely to bring the document/s to the attention of the Respondent / Defendant; and
- The circumstances justify an order for substituted service.

Facebook
Where substituted service of a sealed copy of the relevant documents is sought to be effected by being sent by private message or email to the Facebook page of the Defendant / Respondent on the Internet, the Applicant must bear in mind:
- The uncertainty of Facebook pages, and
- The fact that anyone can create an identity that could mimic the true identity of the subject person.

Accordingly the evidence before the Court must show with real force that:
- The person who created the Facebook page is indeed the Defendant / Respondent;
- The Facebook profile was in fact the profile of the Defendant / Respondent;
- The Defendant / Respondent was regularly accessing his Facebook account; and
- The Defendant / Respondent would reasonably get notice of the relevant document/s, if a private message or email was sent to his account.

Conclusion
Whilst strict adherence must be had to the law, an application for substituted service is a largely evidence driven application and each case will be determined by its own unique facts and circumstances.  Preparation is key. The supporting affidavit material must address all of the relevant criteria that need satisfying or the Court will have no evidence before it upon which to base the requested order.

Judgment satisfaction can never occur if proper service is never effected. Invest wisely in your application for substituted service. It may be the only way you can put your client on the path to achieving judgment satisfaction.

Ross Bowler LLB