Ananda-Rajah v Crawford - [2022] FCA 620

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ananda-Rajah v Crawford [2022] FCA 620

File number: VID 279 of 2022

Judgment of: MOSHINSKY J

Date of judgment: 21 May 2022

Date of publication of reasons: 25 May 2022

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for interim injunction – where the applicants were candidates in a federal election – where certain signs erected in the electoral divisions in which they were standing for election – where the applicants made an urgent application on the election day for an interim injunction to have the signs removed – where the signs purported to have been authorised by a named individual – where no one with that name was on the Commonwealth Electoral Roll – where a Google search did not return anyone with that name – where the signs stated that they were authorised by the “Business Owners and Contractors Union” – where an association with a similar name existed – where the name on the signs did not include the full name of the association – where the address on the signs appeared to be incorrect or incomplete – whether the applicants had established a prima facie case – whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an interim mandatory injunction for removal of the signs – held: injunction granted

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CTH) – elections – authorisation of electoral matter – requirements for authorisation of electoral matter – where certain signs erected in the electoral divisions in which the applicants were standing for election – where the signs purported to have been authorised by a named individual – where no one with that name was on the Commonwealth Electoral Roll – where a Google search did not return anyone with that name – where the signs stated that they were authorised by the “Business Owners and Contractors Union” – where an association with a similar name existed – where the name on the signs did not include the full name of the association – where the address on the signs appeared to be incorrect or incomplete – where the applicants, who were candidates in a federal election, made an urgent application on the election day for an interim injunction to have the signs removed

Legislation:
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth), ss 4AA, 321B, 321C, 321D, 383

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 23

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39B

Commonwealth Electoral (Authorisation of Voter Communication) Determination 2021 (Cth), cl 11

Cases cited:
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57

Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618

GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Ltd (2013) 305 ALR 363

Microsoft Corporation v Goodview Electronics Pty Ltd (1999) 46 IPR 159; [1999] FCA 754

Samsung Electronics Company Ltd v Apple Inc (2011) 217 FCR 238

Division: General Division

Registry: Victoria

National Practice Area: Other Federal Jurisdiction

Number of paragraphs: 32

Date of hearing: 21 May 2022

Counsel for the Applicants: Mr PG Willis SC with…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ananda-Rajah v Crawford and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] FCA 620
Decision Date: 21 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants in this case, candidates in a federal election, applied urgently on election day for an interim injunction to remove certain signs erected in their electoral divisions. The signs purported to be authorised by an individual named "Hendrick Fourey" from the "Business Owners and Contractors Union," but no one with that name appeared on the Commonwealth Electoral Roll or through a Google search. Additionally, the signs did not include the full name of the association and the address appeared to be incorrect or incomplete. The court had to determine whether the applicants had established a prima facie case for an interim injunction and if the balance of convenience favoured the removal of the signs.

The legal issues involved the requirements for the authorisation of electoral matter under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The court considered whether the signs met the necessary criteria for authorisation and whether there was a sufficient connection between the signs and the election. The applicants argued that the signs were misleading and could potentially influence voters unfairly. The court also assessed the applicants' urgency and the potential prejudice to the respondents if an injunction were granted.

The court found that the applicants had established a prima facie case, noting the discrepancies in the authorisation of the signs and the potential for misleading the electorate. The balance of convenience was deemed to favour the applicants, as the signs could influence the election without proper authorisation. Consequently, the court granted the injunction, authorising specific individuals to remove the signs and directing the applicants to inform the respondents of the court's decision.

The court's final orders included the removal of the signs by the respondents, authorisation for specific individuals to carry out the removal, and a requirement for the applicants to inform the respondents of the court's decision. The court also granted liberty to apply for further orders and reserved costs for later determination. These orders were intended to ensure compliance with electoral laws and to maintain the integrity of the electoral process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Subject to further order, the first and second respondents, by their servants and agents, remove the signs referred to in the affidavit of Chris Ford affirmed 21 May 2022, being signs that purport to be authorised by “Hendrick Fourey” of “Business Owners and Contractors Union”.

2. Subject to further order, Mr Evan Willis, a partner of Holding Redlich (solicitors), and any other solicitor at Holding Redlich authorised by Mr Willis to do so, and any officer of the Australian Electoral Commission, are authorised to remove the signs referred to in paragraph 1.

3. The applicants take all reasonable steps to bring these orders to the attention of the first and second respondents as soon as possible.

4. There be liberty to apply.

5. Costs be reserved.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

For these reasons, I consider it appropriate to make orders that:(1)Subject to further order, the first and second respondents, by their servants and agents, remove the signs referred to in the affidavit of Chris Ford affirmed 21 May 2022, being signs that purport to be authorised by “Hendrick Fourey” of “Business Owners and Contractors Union”.(2)Subject to further order, Mr Evan Willis, a partner of Holding Redlich (solicitors), and any other solicitor at Holding Redlich authorised by Mr Willis to do so, and any officer of the Australian Electoral Commission, are authorised to remove the signs referred to in paragraph 1.(3)The applicants take all reasonable steps to bring these orders to the attention of the first and second respondents as soon as possible.(4)There be liberty to apply.(5)Costs be reserved.Conclusion It was for the above reasons that I made the orders.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number:	VID 279 of 2022
Judgment of:	MOSHINSKY J
Date of judgment:	21 May 2022
Date of publication of reasons:	25 May 2022
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for interim injunction – where the applicants were candidates in a federal election – where certain signs erected in the electoral divisions in which they were standing for election – where the applicants made an urgent application on the election day for an interim injunction to have the signs removed – where the signs purported to have been authorised by a named individual – where no one with that name was on the Commonwealth Electoral Roll – where a Google search did not return anyone with that name – where the signs stated that they were authorised by the “Business Owners and Contractors Union” – where an association with a similar name existed – where the name on the signs did not include the full name of the association – where the address on the signs appeared to be incorrect or incomplete – whether the applicants had established a prima facie case – whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an interim mandatory injunction for removal of the signs – held: injunction granted CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CTH) – elections – authorisation of electoral matter – requirements for authorisation of electoral matter – where certain signs erected in the electoral divisions in which the applicants were standing for election – where the signs purported to have been authorised by a named individual – where no one with that name was on the Commonwealth Electoral Roll – where a Google search did not return anyone with that name – where the signs stated that they were authorised by the “Business Owners and Contractors Union” – where an association with a similar name existed – where the name on the signs did not include the full name of the association – where the address on the signs appeared to be incorrect or incomplete – where the applicants, who were candidates in a federal election, made an urgent application on the election day for an interim injunction to have the signs removed
Legislation:	Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth), ss 4AA, 321B, 321C, 321D, 383 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 23 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39B Commonwealth Electoral (Authorisation of Voter Communication) Determination 2021 (Cth), cl 11
Cases cited:	Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57 Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618 GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Ltd (2013) 305 ALR 363 Microsoft Corporation v Goodview Electronics Pty Ltd (1999) 46 IPR 159; [1999] FCA 754 Samsung Electronics Company Ltd v Apple Inc (2011) 217 FCR 238
Division:	General Division
Registry:	Victoria
National Practice Area:	Other Federal Jurisdiction
Number of paragraphs:	32
Date of hearing:	21 May 2022
Counsel for the Applicants:	Mr PG Willis SC with…