Lorimer v Smail [1911] HCA 44

Lorimer v Smail [1911] HCA 44

Section 100 of the Insolvency Act 1897 (Victoria) applies only to settlements made by male settlors and does not render settlements by women upon their children void for failure to register.

Parties
Appellant: Lorimer and others; Respondent: Smail and another
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 September 1911
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Settlements by Women, Statutory Interpretation, Effect of Insolvency on Settlement, Registration Requirements
Insolvency Property Law Settlements by Women Statutory Interpretation Effect of Insolvency on Settlement Registration Requirements

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lorimer and others

Appellant

Smail and another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 100 of the Insolvency Act 1897 (Vic) apply to settlements made by women?
  2. 2 Was the transfer of property by Isabella Susanna Lorimer (formerly Farckens) to herself and her children void against the trustees in insolvency for failure to register under section 100?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 100 of the Insolvency Act 1897 (Victoria) applies only to settlements made by male settlors and does not render settlements by women upon their children void for failure to register.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment appealed from discharged
  • Appeal from the Court of Insolvency dismissed with costs