|
The recent High Court decision in Palgo Holdings Pty Ltd v Gowans¹ considers the long standing distinction between a security in the form of a pledge or pawn and a security in the form of a chattel mortgage. The decision in Palgo demonstrates that, despite the purposive approach to statutory interpretation, general law definitions may be adopted by the courts unless a different definition is included in the relevant statute. Palgo may represent a case where the court, as Lord Diplock described it, declares that Parliament has missed its target.² |
|