Miles v Official Receiver in Bankruptcy

The case of *Miles v Official Receiver in Bankruptcy* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia regarding the validity of a deed of assignment of a debt. The appellant, Miles, sought to recover a debt owed to him by a company, but his claim was challenged by the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy, who asserted that the debt had been validly assigned to a third party prior to Miles's bankruptcy. The central dispute revolved around whether the assignment, which was not registered under the *Companies Act 1961* (Vic) or notified to the debtor, was effective to transfer legal title to the debt.

The High Court was required to determine whether the deed of assignment, in the absence of registration or notification to the debtor, operated to pass the legal chose in action to the assignee. Specifically, the court had to consider the requirements for the effective assignment of a legal chose in action at common law and under relevant statutory provisions, and whether the assignment in question met those requirements. The question of whether the assignment was complete and binding as between the assignor and assignee, and whether it was effective against third parties such as the Official Receiver, was also central to the determination.

The court held that the deed of assignment, while intended to transfer the legal chose in action, was ineffective to do so because it did not comply with the requirements for the assignment of a legal chose in action at common law. The judges reasoned that for a legal chose in action to be effectively assigned at common law, there must be a clear intention to assign, and the assignment must be complete. In this instance, the assignment was found to be incomplete and therefore ineffective to pass legal title. The court distinguished between an assignment that is complete as between the assignor and assignee and one that is effective against third parties, noting that the latter often requires further steps such as notice to the debtor. The principles of equitable assignment were also considered, but the court found that the assignment did not meet the criteria for an equitable assignment either.

The appeal was dismissed, with the High Court affirming the decision of the lower court that the assignment of the debt was not valid. Consequently, the debt remained the property of the bankrupt estate.