RHONDA HAZEL CONNOLLY v. E I DICKSON [1992] NSWLEC 4

RHONDA HAZEL CONNOLLY v. E I DICKSON [1992] NSWLEC 4

Clauses 22(4) and 22(5) of the Aboriginal Land Rights Regulation 1983 were held to be ultra vires the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 and thus invalid; Burnum Burnum’s election was void due to lack of qualification, creating a vacancy that must be filled by a new election.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 July 1992
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Election declared void; new election ordered
Legal Topics
['statutory Interpretation' 'validity of Regulations' 'election Eligibility']
['electoral Law' 'administrative Law'] ['statutory Interpretation' 'validity of Regulations' 'election Eligibility']

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

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Burnum Burnum was qualified to stand for election as councillor representing the South Coast region on the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council' 'Whether there is a vacancy and how it should be filled']

Ratio Decidendi

Clauses 22(4) and 22(5) of the Aboriginal Land Rights Regulation 1983 were held to be ultra vires the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 and thus invalid; Burnum Burnum’s election was void due to lack of qualification, creating a vacancy that must be filled by a new election.

Court Disposition

Election declared void; new election ordered

Orders

  • ['The first respondent and his servants and agents are restrained from declaring Burnum Burnum elected as a member of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council to represent the South Coast region.' 'The second respondent is restrained from acting or purporting to act as a councillor of the New South Wales...