Fitzgibbon v HM Attorney General

Fitzgibbon v HM Attorney General

The UK High Court has no jurisdiction to determine issues relating to the constitutional law of Australia, as such matters are not justiciable in the UK. The action is struck out for lack of jurisdiction, comity, purposelessness, delay, and lack of sufficient interest.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: David Claude Fitzgibbon; Respondent/defendant: HM Attorney General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Strike Out
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Standing, Delay, Comity, Declaratory Relief
Constitutional Law Public Law Administrative Law Jurisdiction Standing Delay Comity Declaratory Relief

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Claude Fitzgibbon

Appellant/claimant

HM Attorney General

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the UK High Court has jurisdiction to grant declarations regarding the Constitution of Australia and the use of the Great Seal
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be struck out for lack of jurisdiction, comity, purposelessness, delay, and lack of sufficient interest

Ratio Decidendi

The UK High Court has no jurisdiction to determine issues relating to the constitutional law of Australia, as such matters are not justiciable in the UK. The action is struck out for lack of jurisdiction, comity, purposelessness, delay, and lack of sufficient interest.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • action struck out
  • claimant to pay costs