Watson, S. v Mam, T.A.M. & Anor [1995] FCA 357

Watson, S. v Mam, T.A.M. & Anor [1995] FCA 357

Under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 (Cth), in an optional preferential voting system, 'absolute majority of votes' refers to a majority of the unexhausted formal ballots at the stage of the count when only two candidates remain. Ms. Mam therefore was duly elected.

Parties
Petitioner: Samuel Watson; First Respondent: Tomasina Anna May Mam; Second Respondent: Australian Electoral Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 1995
Procedural Posture
Petition Disputing Election Result / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Meaning of Absolute Majority of Votes, Preferential Voting System, Zone Election Procedures Under ATSIC Act
Election Law Statutory Interpretation Meaning of Absolute Majority of Votes Preferential Voting System Zone Election Procedures Under ATSIC Act

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Watson

Petitioner

Tomasina Anna May Mam

First Respondent

Australian Electoral Commission

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition Disputing Election Result / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Meaning of 'absolute majority of votes' in Schedule 3 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the election of Ms. Mam was void for lack of absolute majority

Ratio Decidendi

Under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 (Cth), in an optional preferential voting system, 'absolute majority of votes' refers to a majority of the unexhausted formal ballots at the stage of the count when only two candidates remain. Ms. Mam therefore was duly elected.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • The petition filed on 13 December, 1994 be dismissed.
  • The monies paid into court by the petitioner as security for costs be repaid to the petitioner's solicitors together with any accretions thereto.