Fitzgibbon v HM Attorney General [2005] EWHC 114 (Ch) (09 February 2005)

Fitzgibbon v HM Attorney General [2005] EWHC 114 (Ch) (09 February 2005)

The UK courts have no jurisdiction to determine the constitutional law of Australia or to grant declarations regarding the use of the Great Seal in relation to Australian constitutional functions; the claim is not justiciable, is purposeless, has been brought with inordinate delay, and the claimant lacks sufficient interest.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 114 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant / Claimant: David Claude Fitzgibbon; Respondent / Defendant: HM Attorney General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal (from Strike Out of Claim) / Judgment on Appeal Against Strike Out Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; action struck out
Legal Topics
Divisibility of the Crown, Jurisdiction of UK Courts Over Commonwealth Constitutions, Declaratory Relief, Judicial Review Procedure, International Comity, Delay in Judicial Review, Standing (sufficient Interest)
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Public Law Divisibility of the Crown Jurisdiction of UK Courts Over Commonwealth Constitutions Declaratory Relief Judicial Review Procedure International Comity +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Claude Fitzgibbon

Appellant / Claimant

HM Attorney General

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (from Strike Out of Claim) / Judgment on Appeal Against Strike Out Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether UK courts have jurisdiction to grant declarations on the operation of the Australian Constitution
  2. 2 Whether declaratory relief should be granted regarding the use of the Great Seal of the United Kingdom or Australia
  3. 3 Whether the claim is justiciable in the UK

Ratio Decidendi

The UK courts have no jurisdiction to determine the constitutional law of Australia or to grant declarations regarding the use of the Great Seal in relation to Australian constitutional functions; the claim is not justiciable, is purposeless, has been brought with inordinate delay, and the claimant lacks sufficient interest.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; action struck out

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Master's order striking out the action affirmed