Electoral Commission of Queensland v Palmer Leisure Australia Pty Ltd

In the matter of Electoral Commission of Queensland v Palmer Leisure Australia Pty Ltd, the Electoral Commission of Queensland (ECQ) commenced proceedings against Palmer Leisure Australia Pty Ltd (Palmer Leisure) seeking a declaration that Palmer Leisure was a "property developer" within the meaning of section 273(2) of the Electoral Act 1992. Palmer Leisure applied for summary judgment on the basis that ECQ could not establish that it was a property developer. The legal issues before the court were whether filing a single planning application constituted "engagement in a business that regularly involves the making of relevant planning applications" as required by s 273(2) and whether Palmer Leisure's construction of s 273(2) was so obviously correct that ECQ had no prospect of success. The court held that it could not grant summary judgment because it could not conclude that Palmer Leisure's construction of s 273(2) was so obviously correct that ECQ had no prospect of establishing that Palmer Leisure was a "property developer" and, thus, a "prohibited donor." The court dismissed the application and indicated that it would hear the parties on costs.

The court considered the definition of "business" and the requirement that a corporation be engaged in a business that regularly involves the making of relevant planning applications. The court noted that the meaning of "business" can vary depending on the context and that a close examination of the facts in each particular case is necessary to determine whether someone is carrying on a business. The court also considered whether the activities of an individual or corporation constitute a "business" and whether system and regularity of making transactions are definitive in this field. The court held that it was not enough to show that a person has lent money to another and that whilst system and regularity are involved in the carrying on of a business, it does not necessarily follow that one who has transactions of the same kind systematically or regularly is carrying on a business in those transactions. The court found that the word "engaged" in s 273(2) is used as an adjective to describe "business" and is not used in the past tense. The court concluded that it could not grant summary judgment because it could not conclude that Palmer Leisure's construction of s 273(2) was so obviously correct that ECQ had no prospect of success. The court dismissed the application and indicated that it would hear the parties on costs.