Assaf v Australian Electoral Commission [2004] FCA 1239

Assaf v Australian Electoral Commission [2004] FCA 1239

Because the statutory procedure under s 213(1) miscarried when a ball was missing from the container during the draw, the first attempted determination of ballot order was invalid. The Divisional Returning Officer remained under a duty to determine the order strictly in accordance with s 213(1), and the only legally...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review of a Decision of the Australian Electoral Commission Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) and the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) / Final Judgment; Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'ballot Paper Order' 'commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (cth) S 213(1)' 'irregularity in Statutory Draw Procedure' 'full Re Draw']
['administrative Law' 'electoral Law'] ['judicial Review' 'ballot Paper Order' 'commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (cth) S 213(1)' 'irregularity in Statutory Draw Procedure' 'full Re Draw']

Source-derived case record

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

Application for Judicial Review of a Decision of the Australian Electoral Commission Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) and the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) / Final Judgment; Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Australian Electoral Commission erred by conducting a full re-draw for ballot paper positions after an irregularity occurred in the procedure under s 213(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth).' 'Whether the applicant could retain the number 1 ballot position from the first attempted draw while only the last two or three positions were re-drawn.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the statutory procedure under s 213(1) miscarried when a ball was missing from the container during the draw, the first attempted determination of ballot order was invalid. The Divisional Returning Officer remained under a duty to determine the order strictly in accordance with s 213(1), and the only legally sound course was to conduct a full re-draw rather than preserve any part of the tainted draw.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.']