Bradlow v Australian Electoral Commissioner

Link copied
Case Copied 19 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Bradlow v Australian Electoral Commissioner [2025] FCA 1172

File number(s): VID 146 of 2025
Judgment of: RAPER J
Date of judgment: 23 September 2025
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for order specifying maximum costs – whether the litigation can be characterised as having “public interest” – where the substantive proceeding concerns whether more than one person can occupy a senate seat within the meaning of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) – where the proceeding has both public and private interest dimensions – where the applicants are likely to discontinue the proceeding in the absence of a maximum costs order to avoid financial risk – where the proceeding has some complexity – where the case is arguable but not strong –application refused
Legislation:

Constitution, s 7

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth)

Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth), s 37M

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 40.51

Cases cited:

Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition Ltd v Commissioner of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission [2021] FCA 435

Caroona Coal Action Group Inc v Coal Mines Australia Pty Ltd [2009] NSWLEC 165; 170 LGERA 22

Corcoran v Virgin Blue Airlines [2008] FCA 864

Hanisch v Strive Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 303; 74 FCR 384

Houston v State of New South Wales [2020] FCA 502

King v Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 36

McKay Super Solutions Pty Ltd (Trustee) v Bellamy's Australia Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 215; 135 ACSR 278

Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; 193 CLR 72

Sacks v Permanent Trustee Australia Ltd [1993] FCA 502; 45 FCR 509

Woodlands v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd [1995] FCA 548; 58 FCR 139

Division: General Division
Registry: Victoria
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs: 32
Date of hearing: 15 September 2025
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr M Seck with Ms L Geddes
Solicitor for the Applicants: Ms S Price of Women’s Legal Centre ACT
Counsel for the Australian Electoral Commissioner: Ms J Watson with Ms M Jackson
Solicitor for the Australian Electoral Commissioner: Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Commonwealth: Mr P Herzfeld SC with Ms O Ronan
Solicitors for the Commonwealth: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

VID 146 of 2025
BETWEEN:

LUCINDA CAROLINE BRADLOW

First Applicant

BRONWEN EVELYN BOCK

Second Applicant

AND:

AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER

First Respondent

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

RAPER J

DATE OF ORDER:

23 SEPTEMBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The interlocutory application dated 15 July 2025 be dismissed.

2.The matter be listed for case management hearing at 9:30am on 29 October 2025.

3.The applicants pay the respondents’ costs of this application as agreed or assessed.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

RAPER J:

  1. The applicants, Ms Lucy Bradlow and Ms Bronwen Bock, jointly sought to nominate as a job-share “candidate” or, alternatively, as job share “candidates” to…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bradlow v Australian Electoral Commissioner 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
[2025] FCA 1172
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bradlow brought an application against the Australian Electoral Commissioner concerning the interpretation of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. The dispute revolves around whether more than one individual can occupy a senate seat, a matter that has both public and private interest dimensions. The applicants sought a maximum costs order to avoid financial risk and potential discontinuance of the proceeding. The court considered whether the litigation could be characterised as having a public interest, the complexity of the case, and the strength of the applicants' case.

The primary legal issue was whether the litigation could be characterised as having a public interest. The court needed to balance the public and private interest dimensions of the proceeding and assess the strength and complexity of the applicants' case. The applicants argued that the proceeding has a public interest aspect, but the court found that the proceeding has both public and private interest dimensions, and the applicants' case was arguable but not strong.

The court held that the proceeding could not be characterised as having a public interest, and the applicants' case was not strong enough to warrant a maximum costs order. The applicants were likely to discontinue the proceeding in the absence of a maximum costs order, but the court found that the proceeding had some complexity. The court dismissed the interlocutory application and ordered the applicants to pay the respondents’ costs of the application as agreed or assessed. The matter was listed for a case management hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The interlocutory application dated 15 July 2025 be dismissed.

2. The matter be listed for case management hearing at 9:30am on 29 October 2025.

3. The applicants pay the respondents’ costs of this application as agreed or assessed.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.