Practitioners seeking to invoke the High Court's original jurisdiction under s 75 on diversity grounds must ensure complete diversity of residence between all plaintiffs and all defendants; the presence of a co-plaintiff resident in the same State as the defendant defeats jurisdiction.
Later decisions that cite Watson and Godfrey v Cameron
PDF view: Images • Images and text • Text [HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] WATSON AND GODFREY .... Plaintiffs; AGAINST CAMERON.........................................................................Defendant. High Court—Jurisdiction—Action—Matter between residents of different States— of several plaintiffs resident in same State as defendant—The Constitution (63 64 Viet. c. 12), sec. 75. Melbourne, An action instituted in the High Court in which there is on each side of the record a resident of the same State who is a necessary party to the action is not a matter between residents of different States within the meaning of Isaacs, Higgins (Javan Duify, sec. 75 of.the Constitution, and the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain it. Reference. * William James Watson, a resident of Victoria, and Thomas William Godfrey, a resident of New South Wales, instituted an action in the High Court against Thomas Cameron, a resident of New South Wales. The claim endorsed on the writ was as follows: —“ The plaintiffs claim of the defendant damages for loss suffered by them by reason of the defendant’s negligence and breach of contract in (a) not providing good or sufficient feed or pasture for the plaintiffs’ sheep, (b) not shifting the said sheep into fresh paddocks from time to time or as and when necessary so to do, (c) not taking reasonable or any care of the said sheep or for their sustenance while the same were in the defendant’s care and custody as agister thereof for reward to the defendant upon his property known as Mundowey near Wagga Wagga in the State of New South Wales, in consequence whereof a great number of the said sheep of the value of £205 2s. died and the remainder were reduced to a OF AUSTRALIA. low and impoverished condition and depreciated in value to the extent of £270. The plaintiffs claim £475 2s.” On a summons for directions Isaacs J. ordered that there be argued before the Full Court the question “ whether there is jurisdiction to give directions in this action with respect to (1) both the plaintiffs William James Watson and Thomas William Godfrey, (2) the plaintiff William James Watson.” Eager, for the plaintiffs. The High Court has jurisdiction under sec. 75 of the Constitution to entertain the action as being a matter “ between residents of different States.” An action in which one plaintiff is a resident of one State and one defendant is a resident of another State is none the less an action between residents of different States though there is added a plaintiff who is a resident of the same State as the defendant or a defendant who is a resident of the same State as the plaintiff. The assumed purpose of the provision enabling actions between residents of different States to be heard in the High Court is that a resident of one State shall not be compelled to litigate his controversy in the Courts of another State in which his opponent resides. That applies equally where there is joined as plaintiff in the action a resident of the State in which the defendant resides. The provision giving jurisdiction to the High Court in matters between residents of different States was adapted from art. hi., sec. 2, of the Constitution of the United States of America, which uses the words “ between citizens of different States.” Decisions in the United States which appear to be against this view are distinguishable ; for they proceed, not upon the words of the Constitution, but upon the words of the Judiciary Act 1789, which are “ between a citizen ” of one State “ and a citizen of another State,” and upon the words of certain statutes removal of causes from State Courts to the Federal Courts d Garran on the Australian Constitution, pp. 776, 777 ; Companies' Case (1); Blake v. McKim (2); Strawbridgev. Curtiss (3); Coal Co. v. Blatchford (4) ; Removal Caes (5)). 1873) 18 Wall. 553, at pp. 557, 3 Cranch 267. 11 Wall. 172. (1880) 103 U.S. 336. 879) 100 U.S. 457. HIGH COURT H. C. or A. [Isaacs J. referred to Venner v. Great Northern Railway Co. Bank of the United States v. Deveaux (2); New Orleans Corporation v. Winter (3).] The question is res integra in this Court, and the provision in sec. 75 of the Constitution should be given as wide an interpretation as possible. The claim of the plaintiffs is not only joint but is also several, for they sue in tort as well as in contract. Little, for the defendant, referred to Hooe v. Jamieson (4). Knox C.J. I think it is quite clear that this Court has no juris diction 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. 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. 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, (1) (1908) 209 U.S. 24, at p. 31. (3) (1816) 1 Wheat. 91, atp. 94. (2) (1809) 5 Cranch 61. (4) (1897) 166 U.S. 395. 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. iMsher, Wagga Wagga, by E. A. F. Croft. B. L. VOL. XL 29 Article source: One to 100 Project (this volume sponsored by Minter Ellison) Citation report Full report: View this article in the Jade Citator Citations: [1928] HCA 4; 40 CLR 446 Add a citation Export and alerts: Print/Export · Alert: when this document is cited · Alert: list of authorities Visualisations: Similarity · HotSpot · More [?] Jump to: Cases cited · Legislation cited · Incoming links · Top Citation counts: Show: All citations HCA and appellate courts only Cases citing this decision Cases cited by this decision Legislation cited by this decision Back to Top JADE CaseTrace Citations: [1928] HCA 4; 40 CLR 446 [Copy] Citations to this decision: 21 Cases cited: 4 Statutory material cited: 1 Cited sections: pp448-449 Most recent citation: [2025] HCADisp 272 Source: Download original document Jade Citator • Citation report