Jones v Pearson [2015] NSWSC 1324

Jones v Pearson [2015] NSWSC 1324

A petitioner who seeks leave to discontinue an election petition is properly characterised as an 'unsuccessful party to the petition' under s 172. Accordingly, costs may be ordered against the petitioner, and in the absence of good reason or public interest, no recommendation should be made that the Crown pay the petitioner's costs. However, due to the position of the First Respondent being joined through no fault of his own and in the interest of not discouraging candidacy, a recommendation is made that the Crown pay the First Respondent's costs ordered against the petitioner.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Discontinuance; Costs Determination
Outcome
Petition discontinued with leave; costs orders made; recommendation for Crown payment of costs to First Respondent.
Legal Topics
['court of Disputed Returns' 'election Petition' 'costs' 'discontinuance of Proceedings' 'statutory Construction']
['electoral Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['court of Disputed Returns' 'election Petition' 'costs' 'discontinuance of Proceedings' 'statutory Construction']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Election Petition / Discontinuance; Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the petitioner, upon seeking leave to discontinue, is an 'unsuccessful party to the petition' under s 172 of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912" 'Interaction between ss 161(1)(ix) and 172 regarding costs orders and recommendations' "Whether the Crown should be recommended to pay the First Respondent's costs" 'Whether costs should be awarded against the petitioner upon discontinuance']

Ratio Decidendi

A petitioner who seeks leave to discontinue an election petition is properly characterised as an 'unsuccessful party to the petition' under s 172. Accordingly, costs may be ordered against the petitioner, and in the absence of good reason or public interest, no recommendation should be made that the Crown pay the petitioner's costs. However, due to the position of the First Respondent being joined through no fault of his own and in the interest of not discouraging candidacy, a recommendation is made that the Crown pay the First Respondent's costs ordered against the petitioner.

Court Disposition

Petition discontinued with leave; costs orders made; recommendation for Crown payment of costs to First Respondent.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to Pt 79 r 19 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970 the Petitioner is granted leave to discontinue these proceedings.' 'The proceedings commenced on 29 May 2015 are discontinued.' 'The Notice of Motion filed on 23 June 2015 by the Second Respondent is dismissed.' 'The Petitioner is to pay the costs of the First...