Hall v Woolf

The appellant, the trustee in a Queensland liquidation by arrangement of one Horowitz, sought an order from the Supreme Court of Western Australia for the respondent, the trustee of Horowitz's subsequent Western Australian insolvency, to deliver property in his hands. Horowitz, originally domiciled in Poland, was naturalized in Queensland before 1890, when the liquidation commenced. He left Queensland in 1890, never obtained a discharge, and subsequently resided in Western Australia from 1891, where he acquired property and was naturalized in 1902. In 1908, he became insolvent in Western Australia. The appellant's claim was based on the principle that an assignment of a bankrupt's property under the law of a jurisdiction with control over the person operates as an assignment of moveables wherever they are located.

The central legal issue was whether the Queensland liquidation law, specifically the provision that all property acquired by a debtor before obtaining a discharge vests in the trustee, had extraterritorial effect on property acquired by Horowitz in Western Australia after he had ceased to be domiciled in Queensland. The court also considered whether Section 118 of the Imperial Bankruptcy Act 1883 created new rights or merely new remedies, and whether Horowitz's ability to change his domicile was affected by the ongoing liquidation proceedings.

The Court held that while the law of a bankrupt's domicile generally operates as a statutory assignment of their moveables worldwide, this principle does not extend to after-acquired property situated in another country when the bankrupt is no longer domiciled in the country of adjudication. The Court reasoned that the rule *mobilia sequuntur personam* continues to apply, but it excludes the operation of the law of the former domicile concerning after-acquired moveables situated elsewhere. Section 118 of the Imperial Bankruptcy Act 1883 was found to provide only new remedies for enforcing existing rights, not new rights themselves. The Court also rejected the argument that a debtor in liquidation cannot change their domicile, deeming it an extraordinary and unfounded limitation on personal freedom.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The Court affirmed the decisions of both Rooth J. and the Full Court of Western Australia, which had refused the appellant's application. The Court found that the Queensland trustee could not assert title to moveables acquired by Horowitz in Western Australia after his domicile in Queensland had ended.