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: 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:
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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] FCA 1172
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.