› Diversity jurisdiction under s 75(iv) – whether corporation can be a 'resident' – Australian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Howe applied
Constitutional law
› Chapter III
› Whether matter between Queensland resident and corporation in federal jurisdiction such that only Chapter III court may determine it
Statutes
› Interpretation
› Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 2C – no application to the Constitution – statute cannot alter constitutional meaning
Courts and judges
› Precedent
› Intermediate appellate court bound to follow High Court authority not re-opened by High Court
Quick Take
1Following Australian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Howe (1922) 31 CLR 290, which the High Court has repeatedly refused to re-open, the word 'residents' in the diversity jurisdiction component of s 75(iv) of the Constitution includes only natural persons, not corporations. A matter between a natural person and a corporation therefore is not a matter 'between residents of different States' and does not attract federal jurisdiction on that basis.
2Section 2C of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), which extends references to persons to include corporations, applies only to Commonwealth legislation and not to the Constitution. In any event, no statute can alter the interpretation of the Constitution.
3Because the diversity argument failed at the threshold, the Court declined, consistently with the prudential approach to constitutional questions, to decide whether QCAT is a Chapter III court or to reconsider Owen v Menzies [2013] 2 Qd R 327. It also left open whether the corporate lessor was in fact resident in another State.
