Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Howe

The Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd. (the plaintiff) commenced an action in the High Court against Ellen Howe (the defendant) for the foreclosure of a mortgage. The plaintiff, a company incorporated in Victoria with its head office in Melbourne, carried on business throughout Australia. The defendant, who had previously resided in Victoria, had removed to and resided in New South Wales. The plaintiff sought to bring the action in the High Court under section 75(IV) of the Constitution, which grants the High Court original jurisdiction in matters "between residents of different States."

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the term "residents" in section 75(IV) of the Constitution extended to artificial persons, such as corporations, or was confined to natural persons. This question arose because the plaintiff was a corporation incorporated in Victoria and carrying on business in other states, while the defendant resided in New South Wales. The Court was asked to determine if, based on the facts presented, the plaintiff and defendant were "residents of different States" for the purposes of establishing the High Court's original jurisdiction.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Knox C.J., Higgins and Gavan Duffy JJ., held that the words "residents" and "resident" in section 75(IV) of the Constitution referred exclusively to natural persons and did not include corporations. Their Honours reasoned that the plain and natural meaning of "resident" as a substantive noun denotes a natural person who resides permanently in a place. They found no indication in the text or context of section 75(IV) that Parliament intended to extend this meaning to corporations, noting that a corporation cannot truly "reside" in the same literal sense as a natural person. Consequently, the majority concluded that the plaintiff company was not entitled to bring an action in the High Court against the defendant under section 75(IV).

The Court answered the question posed in the case stated in the negative. Therefore, the plaintiff company was not considered a "resident" of a different State from the defendant for the purposes of section 75(IV) of the Constitution, meaning the High Court did not have original jurisdiction over the matter on that basis.