Alley v GillespieCitation:[2018] HCA 11Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJDate:21 Mar 2018Case Number:S190/2017Read more

Alley v GillespieCitation:[2018] HCA 11Before:Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Gordon, Edelman JJDate:21 Mar 2018Case Number:S190/2017Read more

The High Court does not have jurisdiction in a common informer action to determine the eligibility of a member of the House of Representatives; such determination must be made by the House or the Court of Disputed Returns under section 47 of the Constitution.

Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Law Common Informer Action / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's action dismissed
Legal Topics
Parliamentary Elections, Common Informer Action, Jurisdiction of High Court, Eligibility of Members of Parliament

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Law Common Informer Action / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to determine the eligibility of a member of the House of Representatives in a common informer action
  2. 2 Proper construction of section 46 of the Constitution
  3. 3 Proper construction of section 47 of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court does not have jurisdiction in a common informer action to determine the eligibility of a member of the House of Representatives; such determination must be made by the House or the Court of Disputed Returns under section 47 of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's action dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's action is dismissed
  • No order as to penalty