Dahms v Brandsch

In *Dahms v Brandsch*, the plaintiff, a resident of South Australia, commenced an action in the original jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia seeking foreclosure of an equitable mortgage over land located in Western Australia. The defendant's place of residence was unknown at the time the action was brought, though he was last known to reside in Victoria in 1894.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether it possessed jurisdiction to hear the matter, specifically under section 75 of the Constitution which grants the Court original jurisdiction in matters "between residents of different States." The Court was required to determine if it could be affirmatively established that the plaintiff and defendant were residents of different States at the time the action was commenced.

Griffith C.J. held that the High Court could not assume jurisdiction based on speculation. The evidence presented only established the plaintiff's residence in South Australia and the defendant's former residence in Victoria in 1894, with no indication of his current location. Consequently, the Court could not be satisfied that the parties were residents of different States at the commencement of the proceedings. The Chief Justice noted that the plaintiff had a clear remedy available in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The action was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.