Cole v Lacey [1965] HCA 11

Cole v Lacey [1965] HCA 11

The petition did not satisfy s. 185 (a) because it neither directly nor indirectly alleged facts which, if established, would prove or tend to prove irregularity in the scrutiny or return. The alleged lower percentage of informal votes, whether compared with other States or previous Tasmanian Senate elections, did not justify an inference that informal votes were admitted and counted, and the petition contained no allegation that any scrutineer objected to ballot papers or that any informal votes or classes of informal votes were admitted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Election Petition Under Pt XVIII of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 1962 Cth Seeking a Recount of Senate Votes and Consequential Declarations / Hearing to Determine Whether the Petition Fulfilled S. 185 and Was One Upon Which Proceedings May Be Had Under S. 187
Outcome
Petition dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['senate Election Petition' 'recount' 'informal Votes' 'requirements for Election Petition' 'court of Disputed Returns']
['electoral Law'] ['senate Election Petition' 'recount' 'informal Votes' 'requirements for Election Petition' 'court of Disputed Returns']

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 Under Pt XVIII of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 1962 Cth Seeking a Recount of Senate Votes and Consequential Declarations / Hearing to Determine Whether the Petition Fulfilled S. 185 and Was One Upon Which Proceedings May Be Had Under S. 187

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the petition set out facts relied on to invalidate the election or return as required by s. 185 (a) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1962 Cth.' 'Whether a petitioner alleging admission of informal votes must allege or prove that the votes were sufficient in number to affect the result of the election.' 'Whether lower percentages of rejected informal votes compared with other States or previous Tasmanian Senate elections supported an inference that informal votes were admitted and counted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The petition did not satisfy s. 185 (a) because it neither directly nor indirectly alleged facts which, if established, would prove or tend to prove irregularity in the scrutiny or return. The alleged lower percentage of informal votes, whether compared with other States or previous Tasmanian Senate elections, did not justify an inference that informal votes were admitted and counted, and the petition contained no allegation that any scrutineer objected to ballot papers or that any informal votes or classes of informal votes were admitted.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Petition dismissed with costs.']