Practitioners seeking to invoke the High Court's original jurisdiction in diversity matters must adduce evidence establishing the defendant's current State of residence at the time the action is commenced.
Later decisions that cite Dahms v Brandsch
Dahms Plaintiff; and Brandsch Defendant.
H C of A
20 October 1911
Griffith C.J.
J. M. Solomon for the plaintiff.
Griffith C.J.
The High Court has original jurisdiction in certain cases only, one of them being in matters "between residents of different States." In this action it is sought to take advantage of this jurisdiction. The Court must therefore be satisfied that the plaintiff and defendant are residents of different States. The plaintiff is a resident of South Australia. All that we know about the defendant is that in the year 1894 he was a resident of Victoria, and upon the evidence he ceased to be a resident of that State soon after. Under these circumstances it is impossible to say affirmatively that this is an action between persons who were at the time of the bringing of the action residents of different States. So far as the evidence goes, it appears that the Court has no jurisdiction, and the only order that can be made is that the action be dismissed. It is satisfactory to know that the plaintiff has a complete remedy under the Rules of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
Action dismissed.
Solicitor, for the plaintiff, J. M. Solomon.