Bridge v Bowen

The case of *Bridge v Bowen* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose from an election for alderman in the City of Sydney, where the appellant, Clarence Walter Bridge, was declared elected. Samuel Bowen, a defeated candidate, sought to have Bridge ousted from office, alleging that the election was unduly elected.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation of section 56 of the *Sydney Corporation Act 1902* (N.S.W.), which provided for the ouster of an unduly elected alderman. Specifically, the Court had to determine what constituted an "unduly elected" person in circumstances where votes cast by personators were accepted and counted, and the number of such votes exceeded the difference between the votes received by the elected candidate and the candidate with the next highest number of votes.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Isaacs, Higgins, Gavan Duffy, Powers, and Rich JJ., held that an election does not, under the *Sydney Corporation Act 1902*, appear to be unduly elected merely because votes cast by personators have been accepted and counted, and the number of these votes is greater than the difference between the votes for the elected candidate and the next highest candidate. The Court reasoned that the common law principle for avoiding an election requires a demonstrable likelihood that the result has been affected by the irregularities, and in the context of a secret ballot where votes cannot be identified, it is impossible to prove affirmatively that the personated votes altered the outcome. Therefore, the mere fact that personated votes were counted, even if sufficient to potentially change the result, was not enough to establish that the election was unduly elected under section 56. Griffith C.J. and Barton J. dissented, arguing that the intrusion of unqualified voters sufficient to affect the result should, by common law, render an election void.

The High Court allowed the appeal, reversing the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and discharging the rule nisi for ouster.