Cox v Journeaux [1934] HCA 72

Cox v Journeaux [1934] HCA 72

The Court affirmed that corporations are not 'residents' of a State for the purposes of Constitution s 75(iv), following Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd. v. Howe; thus, the action against the companies in the High Court could not be maintained.

Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Benjamin John Cox; Respondent/defendant: Herbert Fogelstrom Journeaux; Respondent/defendant: Horace Frank Richardson; Respondent/defendant: Thomas Allan McKay; Respondent/defendant: Arthur Vesey Walker; Respondent/defendant: Cox Brothers (Australia) Ltd.; Respondent/defendant: Cox Investments Ltd. (in liquidation); Intervener: Commonwealth of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Dixon J, Application for Dismissal for Want of Jurisdiction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Original Jurisdiction of High Court, Residents of Different States, Corporations as Residents Within Meaning of Constitution S. 75(iv)
Constitutional Law Jurisdiction Original Jurisdiction of High Court Residents of Different States Corporations as Residents Within Meaning of Constitution S. 75(iv)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benjamin John Cox

Appellant/plaintiff

Herbert Fogelstrom Journeaux

Respondent/defendant

Horace Frank Richardson

Respondent/defendant

Thomas Allan McKay

Respondent/defendant

Arthur Vesey Walker

Respondent/defendant

Cox Brothers (Australia) Ltd.

Respondent/defendant

Cox Investments Ltd. (in liquidation)

Respondent/defendant

Commonwealth of Australia

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Dixon J, Application for Dismissal for Want of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether companies incorporated and managed in Victoria are 'residents' of Victoria within Constitution s 75(iv)
  2. 2 Whether the decision in Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd. v. Howe (1922) 31 C.L.R. 290 should be reconsidered

Ratio Decidendi

The Court affirmed that corporations are not 'residents' of a State for the purposes of Constitution s 75(iv), following Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd. v. Howe; thus, the action against the companies in the High Court could not be maintained.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Suit dismissed with costs unless plaintiff, within fourteen days, elects to proceed only against the individual defendants, upon which the companies are dismissed from the suit and the plaintiff pays their taxed costs up to service of such notice.