Boland v Hughes

In the High Court of Australia, Vennard Michael Boland, the Australian Electoral Commissioner, sought an interim injunction against the defendant, also identified as the Australian Electoral Commissioner. The dispute concerned the form of questions to be submitted to the public in a referendum. Specifically, the plaintiff argued that the fourth question, or bill, presented more than one proposed law, which he contended was contrary to the scheme of section 128 of the Constitution.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the fourth proposed law for the referendum contained more than one proposed alteration, thereby contravening constitutional requirements. The plaintiff's argument was that while amendments to several sections might constitute a single law, the fourth question presented three distinct and unrelated topics, which should have been the subject of separate proposed laws.

The Court was required to consider the constitutional validity of presenting multiple distinct proposals within a single referendum question. The plaintiff's counsel submitted that the fourth question, unlike the preceding three, did not represent a single law but rather three separate laws, and that this multiplicity was inconsistent with the constitutional framework for referendums. The Court's reasoning would have involved an interpretation of section 128 of the Constitution and its application to the specific content of the referendum question.

The proceedings indicate that the plaintiff was seeking an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from submitting the proposed law in its current form. The Court acknowledged the urgency of the matter but also noted the delay in bringing the application for an interlocutory injunction. The plaintiff ultimately sought an interim injunction to prevent the submission of the fourth question until further order.