Ludlam v Johnston [2014] HCA 1

Ludlam v Johnston [2014] HCA 1

The petition did not dispute the validity of an election or return, nor set out facts relied on to invalidate the election or return as required by s 355 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth); therefore, s 358(1) required that there be no proceedings on the petition and the petition must be dismissed.

Parties
Petitioner: Scott Ludlam; First Respondent: David Johnston; Second Respondent: Joe Bullock; Third Respondent: Michaelia Cash; Fourth Respondent: Linda Reynolds; Fifth Respondent: Wayne Dropulich; Sixth Respondent: Sixth Respondent; Seventh Respondent: Seventh Respondent; Eighth Respondent: Eighth Respondent
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Petition / Disposition of Petition Challenging Commonwealth Senate Election; High Court (sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns)
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Petition Disputing Election or Return, Requirements of Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (cth), Jurisdiction
Electoral Law Petition Disputing Election or Return Requirements of Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (cth) Jurisdiction

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scott Ludlam

Petitioner

David Johnston

First Respondent

Joe Bullock

Second Respondent

Michaelia Cash

Third Respondent

Linda Reynolds

Fourth Respondent

Wayne Dropulich

Fifth Respondent

Sixth Respondent

Sixth Respondent

Seventh Respondent

Seventh Respondent

Eighth Respondent

Eighth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition / Disposition of Petition Challenging Commonwealth Senate Election; High Court (sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petition filed was a petition disputing an election or return within the meaning of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the petition met the procedural requirements of section 355 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

The petition did not dispute the validity of an election or return, nor set out facts relied on to invalidate the election or return as required by s 355 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth); therefore, s 358(1) required that there be no proceedings on the petition and the petition must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • No proceedings be had on the petition.
  • Petition dismissed.