St George Bank v Hammer [2015] NSWSC 953

The borrower defaulted on his St George loan and defended the bank’s possession proceedings on the spurious ground that Westpac, to which St George transferred its business, was not the lender and also claimed that the loan and mortgage was unjust as pure asset lending, that is, made without regard to the ability of the borrower to make his repayments. The borrower sought summary dismissal of the bank’s claim for possession.

The court struck out the borrower’s various defences. The court noted that even if St George had securitised the mortgage and loan, it would likely to have occurred by way of equitable assignment and legal title would remain with the bank. The court also found that the borrower had not properly pleaded his claim that the loan was unjust because he had failed to plead what his financial circumstances were at the time of the loan or what steps should have been taken by the bank to ascertain his true position.

Click here to read the full judgement

Scroll to Top