Diaz v Ruddock; Attie v Ruddock - [2021] NSWSC 881

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Diaz v Ruddock; Attie v Ruddock [2021] NSWSC 881
Hearing dates: 15 and 16 July 2021
Decision date: 21 July 2021
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Kunc J
Decision:
See [6]

Catchwords:
ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS — Particular bodies — Political organisations — Preselection disputes — Construction of Constitution of Liberal Party of Australia NSW Division — No issue of principle

Legislation Cited:
Commonwealth Constitution
Constitution Act 1902 (NSW)
COVID-19 Legislation Amendment (Emergency Measures) Act 2020 (No 1) (NSW)
Electoral Funding Act 2018 (NSW)
Local Government Act 1993 (NSW)
Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Countouris v Kallos (2008) 67 ACSR 543; [2008] NSWSC 840
Phoenix Commercial Enterprises Pty Ltd v City of Canada Bay Council [2010] NSWCA 64
Zaiter v Ruddock [2021] NSWSC 880

Texts Cited:
Macquarie Dictionary, online ed, accessed 20 July 2021
Perry Herzfeld and Thomas Prince, Interpretation (2nd ed, 2014, Thomson Reuters)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
2021/192982
Jess Diaz (First Plaintiff)
Peter Camilleri (Second Plaintiff)

2021/194083
Ned Attie (Plaintiff)
Defendants in both proceedings
Phillip Ruddock (First Defendant)
Chris Stone (Second Defendant)
Penny George (Third Defendant)
Christopher Rath (Fourth Defendant)
Tobias Lehmann (Fifth Defendant)
Aileen MacDonald (Sixth Defendant)
Mary-Lou Jarvis (Seventh Defendant)
Matthew Camenzuli (Eighth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:

P E King and A Power (Plaintiffs)
S Robertson and M Maconachie (Eighth Defendant)

Solicitors:
Diaz and Diaz (Plaintiffs in 2021/192982)
Concordia Legal (Plaintiff in 2021/194083)
Harpur Phillips (First to Seventh Defendants)
Pryor Tzannes and Wallis (Eighth Defendant)

File Number(s): 2021/192982; 2021/194083
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

Summary

On 4 September 2021, there will be local government elections in New South Wales (the Forthcoming Elections). Mr J Diaz and Mr P Camilleri are members of the Liberal Party of Australia New South Wales Division (the Party) and Councillors of the City of Blacktown. Mr N Attie is also a member of the Party and a Councillor of the City of Cumberland. Each of these gentlemen is a plaintiff in these proceedings and wishes to stand again in the Forthcoming Elections as a candidate endorsed by the Party.
The issue in these proceedings is what provision or provisions of the Party’s Constitution as adopted by the Party’s State Council (State Council) on 22 July 2000 (and as amended from time to time including on 9 November 2019) (the Constitution) apply to the plaintiffs’ potential selection and endorsement as candidates.
The first to seventh defendants are members of the Party’s State Executive (State Executive), which is responsible for the daily management of the affairs of the Party. The history of their participation in the proceedings is set out in [10]–[12] below.
The eighth defendant, Mr M Camenzuli, is a member of the Party and State Executive. Mr Camenzuli was the contradictor in these proceedings, which arise in the context of a factional dispute within the Party. The Court rejected any evidence that was directed to explaining that dispute or speculating about what one faction or another might do. While such things may…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Diaz v Ruddock; Attie v Ruddock 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: [2021] NSWSC 881
Decision Date: 21 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved two sets of applicants, Diaz and Attie, who sought a judicial review of the preselection process for the Liberal Party of Australia NSW Division. The applicants argued that the Constitution of the party was not followed, leading to an unfair preselection process. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the preselection process complied with the party's constitution.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicants had standing to challenge the preselection process and whether the preselection process complied with the party's constitution. The applicants argued that they had standing as members of the party and that the preselection process was not in accordance with the party's constitution. The respondents, including the Liberal Party of Australia NSW Division and others, argued that the applicants did not have standing and that the preselection process was in compliance with the party's constitution.

The court held that the applicants had standing to challenge the preselection process as they were members of the party. However, the court found that the preselection process was in compliance with the party's constitution. The court held that the party's constitution did not require the preselection process to be conducted in a particular way and that the party had the right to determine its own preselection process. The court also found that there was no issue of principle that required the court to intervene in the party's internal affairs.

The court dismissed the applications for judicial review and held that the preselection process was in compliance with the party's constitution. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the proceedings.

Orders