Conceptual models of the PPSA security interest: Moving beyond the unitary/minimalist dichotomy
Field | Value | Language |
dc.contributor.author | Waldman, Adam | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-12-02T05:53:02Z | |
dc.date.available | 2024-12-02T05:53:02Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | en_AU |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2123/33358 | |
dc.description.abstract | This article explores the existing conceptual models of the "security interest" under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) – the "unitary model" and the "minimalist model". It reviews the elements of and rationales for the models, and their consequences which have been explored in the literature thus far. It then examines the potential variants of, and uncertainties within, the models. In light of these uncertainties, it is contended that the contents of the security interest cannot be reduced to a dichotomy; rather, each of the issues touched upon by the models of the security interest should be viewed as discrete albeit interconnected constructional questions. Consequently, the models should be restricted to the core issue in response to which they were developed, being whether (or not) certain parties are deemed to be owners for the purposes of holding "rights in the collateral" under s 19. It is further contended that, instead of adopting the proposed solution of expressing a preference for one of the models in the Explanatory Memorandum, the government should directly amend the legislation to address the key issues that flow from them. | en_AU |
dc.language.iso | en | en_AU |
dc.publisher | Thomson Reuters | en_AU |
dc.relation.ispartof | Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice | en_AU |
dc.rights | Copyright All Rights Reserved | en_AU |
dc.subject | Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) | en_AU |
dc.subject | security interest | en_AU |
dc.subject | unitary model | en_AU |
dc.subject | minimalist model | en_AU |
dc.title | Conceptual models of the PPSA security interest: Moving beyond the unitary/minimalist dichotomy | en_AU |
dc.type | Article | en_AU |
dc.type.pubtype | Publisher's version | en_AU |
dc.rights.other | This article was published by Thomson Reuters and should be cited as: Waldman, A. (2020). Conceptual models of the PPSA security interest: Moving beyond the unitary/minimalist dichotomy. Journal of Banking and Finance Law and Practice, 31(3), 231–259. For all subscription inquiries please phone, from Australia: 1300 304 195, from Overseas: +61 2 8587 7980 or online at legal.thomsonreuters.com.au/search. The official PDF version of this article can also be purchased separately from Thomson Reuters at http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/journals/subscribe-or-purchase. This publication is copyright. Other than for the purposes of and subject to the conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part of it may in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission. Enquiries should be addressed to Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited. PO Box 3502, Rozelle NSW 2039. legal.thomsonreuters.com.au | en_AU |
usyd.faculty | SeS faculties schools::The University of Sydney Law School | en_AU |
usyd.citation.volume | 31 | en_AU |
usyd.citation.issue | 3 | en_AU |
usyd.citation.spage | 231 | en_AU |
usyd.citation.epage | 259 | en_AU |
workflow.metadata.only | No | en_AU |
Associated file/s
Associated collections