THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF REPATRIATION V. WOODS 13/1936

Foo r3 oy (254

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT.

Judgment aang at. Prellowr

Tis DEPUTY COMETSS.

TONER, REPATRIATION wWoons

These are two applications in two independent actions brought

'wy Robert Henry Woods, He appears before me in persona to Oppose the applications. In each case he sued the Deputy Commissioner of *epatriation, The defendant applies to have te actions summarily dismissed or stayed.

In the first action the plaintiff complains of defamation. It is quite plain,botn on the writ and on the statements which

Mir Woods

made to me,that the defamation of which he complains

is to be found in a letter or alleged letter from the gentleman who occupied the office of Minister ror Repatriation, It may also be the case that he relies on some oral defamation which he alleges was contained in a statement made before a Special Magistrate of the Repatriation Department. { will deal with that action first,

The application is to stay or dismiss it. It appears that We Woods was certified under the Lunacy Act 1928 and was discharged on parole under sec.93,and it negatively appears that no ultimate discharge was msde under sec.98. The application to stay or dismiss the action is based,in effect, on three grounds -

(I) that there is no jurisdiction in this Court to entertain it ;

(2) that it could not be brought except with the aid of a next friend or on the authority of the "aster in Equity ; and

(3) that there is no substance in it as appears from the writ itself and the affidavits.

In my 'opinion there is no jurisdiction in this Court to entertain tie action. 'he Deputy Commissioner of Repatriation is not eued under sec.75 (3) of the Constitution on behalf of the Commonwealth , and there is no other head of jurisdiction under which the action can be brought.

it is,+ thinx,slso correct that without furtser enquiry the action should not be permitted to proceed having regard to the status of lir Woods,