Nelson v Fish

In the High Court of Australia, Michael William Nelson, appearing in person, faced an application by the defendants, M. Fish and R. Morgan, to strike out his writ of summons and statement of claim. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's claim did not disclose a cause of action.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the plaintiff's writ and statement of claim disclosed a valid cause of action against the defendants, and consequently, whether the matter should be struck out or remitted to a lower court. A secondary consideration was whether the case raised a constitutional question that warranted the High Court's original jurisdiction.

The High Court, acknowledging its primary role as an appellate court, indicated that it was unable to deal with matters at first instance that would occupy significant time. His Honour had reviewed the documents and expressed grave difficulties with the plaintiff's claim, stating that he could see nothing that could conceivably justify a claim for damages against the defendants. The Court proposed to remit the matter to the Federal Court of Australia in Perth for determination, a course not opposed by the defendants. While Mr Nelson expressed dissatisfaction with the delay this might cause, he was informed that proper judicial procedures were paramount. The Court noted that even if a constitutional question were raised, it could still be dealt with by the Federal Court and, if necessary, removed to the High Court.

The Court indicated its intention to remit the matter to the Federal Court of Australia.