There are undoubtedly going to be some interesting questions as what law to apply, as there were in the Kunstversammlung case in the U.S., but if the common law rule is applied, which is the rule that you just quoted from the Queensland Sale of Goods Act, then the original owner still has the right to repossess the goods, as the original thief got no title and therefore had not title that could be passed on to later purchasers (unless one of the later sales was in a market overt during hours of daylight, which seems improbable).

However, the Act goes on to provide: section 26 that when the seller of goods has a voidable title which has not been avoided at sale, a buyer in good faith without notice acquires good title.

But, since the original thief had no title, none of the subsequent purchasers had even voidable title so this provision would not be relevant.

In section 27(1), the Act deals specifically with stolen goods and provides that, despite any intermediate dealings, property in stolen goods revests in the owner from whom the goods were stolen upon the prosecution of the thief to conviction.

Section 27(2) provides that in the case of goods obtained by wrongful means short of theft, property does not revest by reason only of the conviction of the offender, notwithstanding an enactment to the contrary.

Since the "property'' was never never out of the original owner the revesting provisions have no application.

So the original owner has, under a common law analysis, always had the property, unless title has been lost by prescription, which is where the question of which law governs is likely to get very hairy.

--
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu