Forster v Shackell [1906] HCA 14

Forster v Shackell [1906] HCA 14

Property of a married woman subject to a restraint on anticipation does not, on her insolvency, vest in her trustee in insolvency or form part of her estate divisible among creditors, notwithstanding sec. 119 of the Insolvency Act 1897 (Vic).

Parties
Appellant: Annie Forster; Respondent, Trustee of Estate: Edward Herbert Shackell; Respondent, Trustee of Will: Duncan McGregor
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 1906
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From the Supreme Court of Victoria, Decision Below Reversed
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Restraint on Anticipation, Insolvent Estates, Trusts and Wills
Insolvency Law Property Law Married Women's Property Restraint on Anticipation Insolvent Estates Trusts and Wills

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Annie Forster

Appellant

Edward Herbert Shackell

Respondent, Trustee of Estate

Duncan McGregor

Respondent, Trustee of Will

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From the Supreme Court of Victoria, Decision Below Reversed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether property subject to restraint on anticipation vests in trustee in insolvency on married woman’s bankruptcy
  2. 2 Interpretation of sec. 22 Married Women's Property Act 1890 (Vic) and sec. 119 Insolvency Act 1897 (Vic)

Ratio Decidendi

Property of a married woman subject to a restraint on anticipation does not, on her insolvency, vest in her trustee in insolvency or form part of her estate divisible among creditors, notwithstanding sec. 119 of the Insolvency Act 1897 (Vic).

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Orders of the courts below discharged