Registrar's power under s 186 PPS Act
63 Mr Markus argued that s 186 addresses an incorrect exercise of the Registrar's powers to remove data, not any other exercise of power. Alternatively, he submitted that what needs to be demonstrated is that change has been incorrectly effected. He argued that, when the Registrar acts in accordance with a duty imposed on him by s 150 to register a financial change statement in accordance with the application, it could not be said that the performance of that duty is an incorrect act.
64 Counsel for the applicants, Ms Gatland, argued that data may be found to have been "incorrectly removed" from the register even though there was no error on the part of the Registrar. In this regard, she noted that s 188 empowers the Registrar to correct errors or omissions made by him or her. Accordingly, she argued that s 186 must be directed towards the removal of data by the Registrar in circumstances not involving error or omission by him or her.
65 At least in correspondence, the Registrar accepted that the power in s 186 extends beyond the restoration of data incorrectly removed under Part 5.7 to removals under Part 5.6. Under that Part, a person with an interest in collateral may require changes to the registration by way of an "amendment demand" given to the secured party. There is an administrative and a judicial process set out in ss 181 and 182 respectively for registration amendments, which include amendments "to remove the registration" or "to omit the collateral": see s 178(1). If the power in s 186 applies to the removal of data under s 182, then it is difficult to argue that it is limited to addressing an incorrect exercise of the Registrar's powers to remove data because, under s 182, the Registrar is acting under order of the court.
66 The power under s 186 is conditioned upon it appearing to the Registrar that "the data was incorrectly removed from the register under this Act".
67 In my view, data may be removed from the register under the PPS Act pursuant to an application under s 150, if s 150(3) requires the Registrar to register a financing change statement and, in doing so, requires the Registrar to remove data from the register.
68 The Macquarie Dictionary Online defines "incorrect" to mean:
1. Not correct as to fact;
2. Improper;
3. Not correct in form or manner.
69 In my opinion, the word "incorrectly" does not require the identification of an error on the part of the Registrar in removing data from the register. What is required is that data has been removed from the register which ought correctly to be included in the register. This interpretation reflects the difference in language between s 186 and s 188, which concerns the correction of errors and omissions by the Registrar.
70 Further, an ordinary English interpretation of the words "incorrectly removed from the register" includes an act of removal which occurs as a result of error on the part of a person making an application under s 150. This result is consistent with the kinds of circumstances in which data may be incorrectly removed under ss 181 and 182.
71 The evident purpose of s 186 is to ensure that data which should be included in the register, but which has been incorrectly removed, may be restored to the register. It is plainly a "remedial or beneficial provision": cf Nilant v Macchia (2000) 104 FCR 238 at [39] (Weinberg J). In that case, his Honour said, concerning s 306(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) which deals with formal defects and irregularities in proceedings under that Act:
[40] The orthodox view of the approach to be adopted in relation to the interpretation of remedial legislation is that reflected in the dissenting judgment of Issacs J in Bull v Attorney-General (NSW) (1913) 17 CLR 370. His Honour said at 384:
"In the first place, this is a remedial Act, and therefore, if any ambiguity existed, like all such Acts should be construed beneficially ... This means, of course, not that the true signification of the provisions should be strained or exceeded, but that it should be construed so as to give the fullest relief which the fair meaning of its language will allow." (Emphasis added.)
[41] In D C Pearce and R S Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia (4th ed, 1996) the learned authors observe at par 9.3:
"If an Act is intended to benefit a particular person or class of persons, it is preferable for any ambiguity to be resolved in favour of the intended beneficiary. However, it must be clear that the provision is intended to achieve the beneficial purpose claimed."
[42] A provision such as s 306(1) of the Act should be construed beneficially, and as generously as the language of the section allows. It should certainly not be construed in a narrow or pedantic manner.
72 The PPS Act is plainly intended to benefit, among others, security holders by providing for the perfection of security interests in order to establish priority among security holders.
73 In this case, the removal of the data was only correct in the narrow sense that it conformed to the financing change statement that the Registrar was obliged to register.
74 However, the data was "incorrectly removed" from the register in the sense that the removal resulted from the lodgement of an application which did not correctly reflect the intentions of the person making the application. In my view, the language of s 186, read in the context of the whole of the PPS Act does not require the narrow construction contended for by the Registrar. To the contrary, having particular regard to the provision in s 188 for the correction of errors and omissions and the beneficial nature of the provision, s 186 should be construed to permit the restoration of data incorrectly removed in this wider sense.
75 Of course, the Registrar must be satisfied that data has been incorrectly removed before the power under s 186 may be exercised. But the mere fact that the data has been removed in conformity with a financing change statement will not necessarily mean that the data has been correctly removed. If the application to register a financing change statement is found to have been submitted in error or found to have contained data different from that which was intended to be included by the person making the application, then the Registrar may be satisfied that relevant data has been incorrectly removed from the register.