CBA v Kilpatrick [2013] NSWSC 169

The borrower claimed default judgment was obtained illegally because there had been a failure to serve the s 88 notice under the National Credit Code. However the judge noted that strict compliance with such notice requirements is not necessary as long as the borrower gets the gist:

There is a whole series of authorities to the effect that one should not look at such notices strictly, that they are valid so long as they reasonably convey to the recipient the message that the section of the legislation establishing the notice requirement intends the borrower to receive and the borrower is not misled.

Click here to read the full judgment

Scroll to Top