admitted facts, it is, of course, still open to the defendants to
show such a state of facts as will exclude the implication.
For these reasons we think that the appeal should be allowed, and the demurrer over-ruled, with such costs as would have been
TRUSTEE Co.
payable if it had been over-ruled with costs in the first instance. The cause must be remitted to the Supreme Court to do what is right in execution of this judgment.
The respondents must pay the costs of the appeal.
Appeal allowed. Demurrer over-ruled,
with such costs as would have been payable if it had been over-ruled with costs in the first instance. Cause remitted to the Supreme Court to do what is right in execution of this judgment. Respondents to pay the costs of the appeal. Attorney for appellant, A. H. Delohery. Attorneys for respondents, Perkins &Fosbery.
{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]
NORMAN CAMERON
SIR PHILIP FYSH
DENISON ELECTION PETITION.
COURT OF DISPUTED RETURNS. Commonwealth Electoral Act-Amendment of Petition-Crosses on ballot-paper-
Irregularities-Evidence-New - case sought to be made at hearing.
A new fact relied on to invalidate an election will not be allowed to be set HOBART,
up by amendment of the petition after the time allowed by law for presenting April 18.
The requisites of the cross prescribed by the Commonwealth Electoral Act to be put upon the ballot-papers considered.
A petitioner will be kept strictly to the case made by the petition.
At an election for the House of Representatives for the electoral Division of Denison, in the State of Tasmania, held on 16th Dec., 1903, there were three candidates, Sir Philip Fysh, Norman Cameron, and Andrew Kirk: the first-named was declared by the Returning Officer to have been duly elected, the voting being, for Sir Philip Fysh 3,662 votes, for Cameron 3,630 votes. Cameron thereupon filed a petition praying (inter alia) that the respondent Fysh be declared not to have been duly elected, and that the petitioner be declared to have been duly elected.
The petition, as originally framed, alleged numerous offences by the respondent, or his agents, against the provisions of the Electoral Act, together with several irregularities in the conduct of the election. A recount was also claimed.
By order, dated the 29th March, 1904, it was by consent ordered by Griffith, C.J., in Chambers, that the portions of the petition which charged the respondent and his agents with offences against the Electoral Act be struck out.
Lodye, for the petitioner. On the petition as it now stands, the points open to the petitioner, apart from those arising upon the ballot-papers themselves, are :-(1) That electors whose names were on the roll were refused permission to vote: (2) That some of the polling places were not open during the whole of the time fixed for the election (3) That certain persons on the State roll were refused the right to vote: (4) That there was undue influence as to voting at the…
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.
Continue reading Cameron v Fysh
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Cameron v Fysh [1904] HCA 49
Case
[1904] HCA 49
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Cameron v Fysh*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal concerning the validity of a federal election in the Division of Perth. The appellant, Cameron, was the respondent in an election petition filed by Fysh, who alleged irregularities in the conduct of the election, specifically relating to the marking of ballot papers. The core of the dispute revolved around whether certain ballot papers, marked with crosses in a manner not strictly conforming to the Electoral Act, should be counted.
The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the election court had erred in allowing the petitioner, Fysh, to amend his petition at the hearing to introduce a new case based on the interpretation of ballot papers that had not been previously pleaded. This raised questions about the court's power to amend election petitions and the principles governing the introduction of new evidence or arguments late in proceedings, particularly in the context of electoral disputes where finality is important.
Griffith, C.J., held that the election court had erred in permitting the amendment of the petition. His Honour reasoned that the proposed amendment sought to introduce a substantially new case that was not foreshadowed in the original petition. This would have prejudiced the respondent, Cameron, by requiring him to meet a case for which he had not been prepared. The Chief Justice emphasised that while courts have power to amend pleadings, such power should be exercised judiciously, particularly in election petitions, and should not permit the introduction of entirely new grounds for challenging an election at the final hearing.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the election court that had permitted the amendment and had proceeded to consider the new case. The matter was remitted to the election court to proceed without regard to the improperly amended petition.