Watson & Godfrey v Cameron [1928] HCA 4; (1928) 40 CLR 446 (9 March 1928)

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Watson and Godfrey Plaintiffs; against Cameron Defendant.

H C of A

9 March 1928

Knox C.J., Isaacs, Higgins Gavan Duffy, Powers and Starke JJ.

Eager, for the plaintiffs.

Little, for the defendant,

Knox C.J.

I think it is quite clear that this Court has no jurisdiction in this action, for the simple reason that it is not an action between residents of different States. Where there is a resident of New South Wales on each side of the record, he being a necessary party, the claim being as here a joint claim, then it is impossible to say that the controversy is between residents of different States.

I think that the answer to the first question should be No. It is unnecessary to answer the second question.

Isaacs J.

I agree that this is not an action between residents of different States. If Mr. Eager's argument were right, it would lead to an alarming extension of the jurisdiction of this Court. All that a plaintiff would have to do would be to see that one of the plaintiffs was a resident of a different State from one of the defendants, and he could then join with himself any number of residents of the same State as that defendant and could even make the State of which he himself was a resident a party.

Higgins J.

I concur in the answer to the question. The argument for the plaintiffs is that we should read the constitutional provision as if it merely purported to give the High Court jurisdiction where there is some distribution of parties as between different States. But that ignores the full force of the word "between" in sec. 75. The action must be "between" residents of different States and, in my opinion, the plaintiff or plaintiffs must be resident in one State and the defendant or defendants must be resident in another State.

Gavan Duffy J.

I agree that this is not a matter between residents of different States within the meaning of sec. 75 of the Constitution.

Powers J.

I agree that the answer to the question should be in the negative.

Starke J.

I agree.

Question 1 answered No. Question 2 not answered.

Solicitors for the plaintiffs, Tatchell, Dunlop, Smalley & Balmer, Bendigo, by Shaw & Turner.

Solicitor for the defendant, E. F. Lusher, Wagga Wagga, by E. A. F. Croft.