Davies v Western Australia

The High Court of Australia considered a dispute between Davies, the appellant, and Western Australia, the respondent, concerning the interpretation of section 117 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act and its application to the Administration Act (W.A.).

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the appellant, who was a resident of Western Australia but not domiciled there, was entitled to the same rights and privileges as a bona fide resident and domiciled person under the Administration Act. Specifically, the Court had to determine the meaning of "resident" in the context of section 117 of the Constitution and its interaction with the phrase "bona fide residents of and domiciled in" as used in the Western Australian legislation.

The Court reasoned that section 117 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination against a resident of a state by reason of their residence in another state. However, it does not extend to protect individuals who are not domiciled in the state in question. The Court held that the Administration Act, in requiring both residence and domicile for certain privileges, did not contravene section 117 of the Constitution because the constitutional provision did not mandate equal treatment for non-residents who were not domiciled in the state. The Court interpreted "resident" in section 117 to mean a person who has their home in a particular state, but this does not necessarily imply domicile.

The appeal was dismissed.