Kee v Taranto

This matter came before the High Court of Australia concerning an application to strike out a claim. The parties involved were Gregory Taranto and Marilyn (the plaintiff), and the Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (the second defendant), represented by Mr. S.D. Rares, who was also acting for the fourth defendant. Mr. P. Carroll appeared for the plaintiff.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the action against the second defendant, the Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland, was valid. The applicants sought to strike out the claim on the basis that, under section 75(iv) of the Constitution, the company was not a resident of Queensland, rendering the action against it defective. This defect, it was argued, could lead to the entire action being dismissed, referencing established High Court precedent. A secondary issue arose regarding the failure of the applicants to provide notice under section 78B of the Judiciary Act to the Attorneys-General, which is a mandatory procedural requirement before certain constitutional matters can be heard.

The court acknowledged the applicants' argument regarding the constitutional residency issue and the precedent set in cases like *Cox v Journeaux*. However, the immediate obstacle to proceeding was the applicants' failure to provide the requisite notice under section 78B of the Judiciary Act. His Honour indicated that this failure meant the court could not proceed to hear the substantive matter and that the costs of the day were consequently thrown away by the applicants' oversight.

The court ordered that the applicants pay the costs of the day due to their failure to provide notice under section 78B of the Judiciary Act. The substantive application to strike out the claim was effectively adjourned, pending the proper provision of notice to the Attorneys-General.