Bradbery v Hay (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 691

Bradbery v Hay (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 691

Although the petition was brought in the public interest and raised issues concerning election practices, the first respondent incurred expense defending her election and there was no evidence of her personal involvement in impropriety or irregularity, so the unsuccessful petitioner should pay her costs. However, because the defects in the amended petition were at least partly attributable to the short statutory time limits, and the evidence filed in support of the petition raised real issues concerning the propriety of some election practices, it was appropriate to recommend that the Crown pay the costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Court of Disputed Returns Costs Application Following Unsuccessful Election Petition / Costs After Dismissal of Amended Petition
Outcome
The petitioner was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs, with a recommendation that the costs be paid by the Crown.
Legal Topics
['court of Disputed Returns' 'unsuccessful Election Petition' 'costs Against Petitioner' 'recommendation That Costs Be Paid by the Crown' 'public Interest in Electoral Integrity' 'defects in Election Petition']
['election Law' 'costs'] ['court of Disputed Returns' 'unsuccessful Election Petition' 'costs Against Petitioner' 'recommendation That Costs Be Paid by the Crown' 'public Interest in Electoral Integrity' 'defects in Election Petition']

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

Court of Disputed Returns Costs Application Following Unsuccessful Election Petition / Costs After Dismissal of Amended Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should order the unsuccessful petitioner to pay the first respondent's costs of the petition." 'Whether the Court should recommend under s 172 of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 that the costs be paid by the Crown.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the petition was brought in the public interest and raised issues concerning election practices, the first respondent incurred expense defending her election and there was no evidence of her personal involvement in impropriety or irregularity, so the unsuccessful petitioner should pay her costs. However, because the defects in the amended petition were at least partly attributable to the short statutory time limits, and the evidence filed in support of the petition raised real issues concerning the propriety of some election practices, it was appropriate to recommend that the Crown pay the costs.

Court Disposition

The petitioner was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs, with a recommendation that the costs be paid by the Crown.

Orders

  • ['The petitioner is to pay the costs of the first respondent incurred in respect of the petition.' 'Recommend that the costs be paid by the Crown.']