South Australia v Victoria

The State of South Australia commenced an action in the High Court against the State of Victoria concerning a dispute over their shared boundary. South Australia sought a declaration that a strip of land, approximately two miles wide and in the de facto occupation of Victoria, was in fact part of South Australian territory. The boundary in question had been fixed by an Imperial Act of Parliament and subsequent Letters Patent as the 141st meridian of East longitude.

The High Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the Court possessed original jurisdiction under section 75 of the Australian Constitution to hear and determine a boundary dispute between two Australian States. Secondly, if jurisdiction was established, the Court had to ascertain the legal effect of a line marked on the ground in 1847 as the 141st meridian, which was later discovered to be approximately two miles west of the true meridian, and whether this marked line, or the true meridian, constituted the legal boundary between the two States.

The majority of the Court, comprising Griffith C.J., Barton, and Powers JJ. (with Isaacs J. concurring on the jurisdictional point but dissenting on the merits), held that the High Court did have jurisdiction to entertain such a dispute, reasoning that "matters between States" under section 75 of the Constitution encompassed disputes capable of determination by legal principles, akin to controversies between individuals. However, on the merits, the majority found that the Governors of South Australia and New South Wales, with the concurrence of the Crown, had the implied authority to permanently mark the boundary on the ground. They concluded that the line marked in 1847, despite being an error, had been established as the de facto and legal boundary and could not be corrected by judicial authority. Higgins J., dissenting, argued that only an Act of the Imperial Parliament could alter the boundary fixed by statute, and therefore the marked line, being erroneous, could not legally define the boundary.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the claim by the State of South Australia. The Court ordered that South Australia had no right to the disputed strip of land of which the High Court could take cognizance, effectively upholding the de facto boundary as the legal one.