Hudson v Lee (No 2) [1993] HCA 58

Hudson v Lee (No 2) [1993] HCA 58

The ground asserted in the petition was not one of bribery, corruption, undue influence, or illegal practice as defined by s. 352(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Section 362 exhaustively governs grounds for invalidating elections, and thus the Court had no jurisdiction to declare the election void on the basis claimed. The petition must be dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Electoral Petition / Final Judgment and Costs Order
Outcome
petition dismissed; Commonwealth to pay respondent's costs
Legal Topics
['election Petitions' 'court of Disputed Returns' 'costs Orders']

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

Electoral Petition / Final Judgment and Costs Order

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court of Disputed Returns has power to declare an election void on the grounds alleged in the petition' "Whether the Commonwealth should be ordered to pay the respondent's costs"]

Ratio Decidendi

The ground asserted in the petition was not one of bribery, corruption, undue influence, or illegal practice as defined by s. 352(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Section 362 exhaustively governs grounds for invalidating elections, and thus the Court had no jurisdiction to declare the election void on the basis claimed. The petition must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed; Commonwealth to pay respondent's costs

Orders

  • ['Petition dismissed.' 'Liberty to the first and second respondents to file and serve written submissions as to costs within seven days.' 'Liberty to the petitioner to file and serve reply submissions within seven days of service.' 'Commonwealth to pay Michael John Lee the amount of costs incurred by him in the...