Hedges v Burchell [1913] HCA 56

Hedges v Burchell [1913] HCA 56

The Court of Disputed Returns does not have jurisdiction, either under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902-1911 or by rule, to order inspection or discovery of documents in the hands of a public officer who is not a party to proceedings prior to the hearing of an election petition.

Parties
Petitioner: William Noah Hedges; Respondent: Reginald John Burchell
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 November 1913
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Application for Inspection of Documents Prior to Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Discovery, Inspection of Documents, Court of Disputed Returns
Election Law Civil Procedure Discovery Inspection of Documents 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Noah Hedges

Petitioner

Reginald John Burchell

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition / Application for Inspection of Documents Prior to Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Court of Disputed Returns have power to make an order permitting a party to inspect and take extracts from rolls and other documents used in connection with an election and in the custody of a public officer not a party to proceedings prior to the hearing of the petition?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Disputed Returns does not have jurisdiction, either under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902-1911 or by rule, to order inspection or discovery of documents in the hands of a public officer who is not a party to proceedings prior to the hearing of an election petition.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed