Forster v Shackell

The case of *Forster v Shackell* concerned a dispute arising from the insolvency of a married woman. The central question before the Full High Court of Australia was whether property held by the insolvent married woman, which was subject to a restraint on anticipation, vested in her trustee in insolvency.

The court was required to determine the interplay between the provisions of the *Married Women's Property Act 1890* (Vic.) and the *Insolvency Act 1897* (Vic.) in relation to the property of an insolvent married woman. Specifically, the court had to consider whether a restraint on anticipation, a common legal mechanism at the time to protect a married woman's property from her husband's debts, prevented that property from passing to her trustee upon her insolvency.

The court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of section 22 of the *Married Women's Property Act 1890* (Vic.), which provided that a married woman's property, even if subject to a restraint on anticipation, would be liable for her debts. The judges held that this provision, read in conjunction with the general principles of insolvency law, meant that property subject to a restraint on anticipation did indeed vest in the trustee in insolvency. The purpose of the restraint was to protect the property from the woman's own actions or her husband's influence, but it did not operate to remove the property from the reach of her creditors in the event of her insolvency.

The court found that the property in question vested in the trustee in insolvency.