Mubarak v Australian Electoral Commission [2018] FCA 1089

Mubarak v Australian Electoral Commission [2018] FCA 1089

The applicant's nomination was signed by only 96 electors entitled to vote in the Division of Perth by-election, rather than the required not less than 100. The failure to obtain 100 eligible signatures was not an error in the application of s 172(2) and was not substantial compliance with s 166(1)(b)(i). The Divisional Returning Officer was therefore not shown to have made legal error in rejecting the nomination, and the Court would not order that the applicant be included on the ballot paper.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Application Concerning Nomination for a House of Representatives by Election / Urgent Application for Orders to Include the Applicant's Name on the Ballot Paper and List of Nominated Candidates
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['candidate Nomination' 'house of Representatives by Election' 'substantial Compliance' 'commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (cth)' 'ballot Paper Inclusion']
['administrative Law' 'electoral Law'] ['candidate Nomination' 'house of Representatives by Election' 'substantial Compliance' 'commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (cth)' 'ballot Paper Inclusion']

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

Administrative Law Application Concerning Nomination for a House of Representatives by Election / Urgent Application for Orders to Include the Applicant's Name on the Ballot Paper and List of Nominated Candidates

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant complied with the requirement that his nomination be signed by not less than 100 electors entitled to vote in the Division of Perth by-election.' 'Whether the Divisional Returning Officer misapplied s 172(2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) in deciding there was no substantial compliance.' "Whether the Court should order reconsideration of the nomination decision or require the applicant's name to be placed on the ballot paper."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's nomination was signed by only 96 electors entitled to vote in the Division of Perth by-election, rather than the required not less than 100. The failure to obtain 100 eligible signatures was not an error in the application of s 172(2) and was not substantial compliance with s 166(1)(b)(i). The Divisional Returning Officer was therefore not shown to have made legal error in rejecting the nomination, and the Court would not order that the applicant be included on the ballot paper.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The applicant\'s name be formally amended to be "Kim Mubarak".' 'The first respondent\'s name be formally amended to be the "Australian Electoral Commission".' 'Mandie Cuevas be added as second respondent.' 'The application be dismissed.' 'No order as to costs.']