KEATING v DICKSON [1991] NSWCA 167

KEATING v DICKSON [1991] NSWCA 167

Although there may be a serious issue to be argued regarding the validity of the directions on informal ballots, the balance of convenience did not support the grant of an interim injunction, given the detriment to the public interest in delaying government formation, the availability of post-election remedies through the Court of Disputed Returns, and the absence of irreparable harm to the applicant.

Parties
Applicant: Anthony Keating; Respondent: Edward Dickson; Respondent: Gregory Murnane; Respondent: State of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 1991
Procedural Posture
Motion for Injunction / Interlocutory Application (interim Injunction)
Outcome
motion for injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Declaration of Informal Votes, Injunction to Preserve Status Quo Pending Appeal, Constitutional Inconsistency, Public Interest and Balance of Convenience in Interlocutory Relief
Electoral Law Constitutional Law Declaration of Informal Votes Injunction to Preserve Status Quo Pending Appeal Constitutional Inconsistency Public Interest and Balance of Convenience in Interlocutory Relief

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Keating

Applicant

Edward Dickson

Respondent

Gregory Murnane

Respondent

State of New South Wales

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion for Injunction / Interlocutory Application (interim Injunction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether instructions to returning officers regarding informal votes were unlawful or inconsistent with entrenched constitutional provisions
  2. 2 Whether interlocutory injunction should be granted to preserve the applicant's position pending further application to the High Court
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours granting an interim injunction

Ratio Decidendi

Although there may be a serious issue to be argued regarding the validity of the directions on informal ballots, the balance of convenience did not support the grant of an interim injunction, given the detriment to the public interest in delaying government formation, the availability of post-election remedies through the Court of Disputed Returns, and the absence of irreparable harm to the applicant.

Court Disposition

motion for injunction dismissed

Orders

  • The motion is dismissed.
  • Mr Keating to pay the costs to Mr Dickson, Mr Murnane and the State of New South Wales.