Legal Research
Cases
Fidge v McCurdy

Fidge v McCurdy

Case [2015] VSC 43 20 February 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COURT OF DISPUTED RETURNS

S CI 2015 0337

JULIAN FIDGE	Petitioner
v
TIMOTHY MCCURDY	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	J FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	13 February 2015 (Short oral reasons)
DATE OF RULING:	20 February 2015 (Written reasons)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Fidge v McCurdy
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 43

---

Court of disputed returns – Petition disputing validity of election of a member of the Legislative Assembly – Alleged production of misleading and deceptive electoral material – Petitioner self-represented – Whether Respondent should be granted leave to be represented by an Australian legal practitioner – Electoral Act 2002 (Vic), ss 126, 127, 128(1) - Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic), s 7(1), Part 4.2.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Petitioner	In person
For the Respondent	Mr E. Gisonda

HIS HONOUR:

Dr Fidge, a candidate in the Victorian State election, disputes the validity of the election of the Victorian Legislative Assembly in the seat of Ovens Valley held on 29 November 2014. He has filed a petition pursuant to s 133 of the Electoral Act 2002 (Vic) (the Act) to the Court of Disputed Returns alleging that the winning candidate in Ovens Valley, Mr McCurdy, produced electoral material that was misleading and deceptive within the meaning of s 84 of the Act.

This application by Mr Gisonda, counsel for Mr McCurdy, is that Mr McCurdy be granted leave to be represented by an Australian legal practitioner in the hearing and any pre-trial hearings of the election petition filed by Dr Fidge.

This application, which is opposed by Dr Fidge, is made pursuant to s 128(1) of the Act, which reads:

A party to a petition must not be represented by an Australian legal practitioner unless—
(a)all the parties consent to the party being represented by an Australian legal practitioner; or
(b)the Court of Disputed Returns grants leave for the party to be represented by an Australian legal practitioner.

I should also refer to ss 126 and 127 of the Act, which Dr Fidge relied upon in his submissions:
126 Court must act fairly
The Court of Disputed Returns must act fairly and according to the substantial merits of the petition in the proceedings.
127 General procedure
(1) The Court of Disputed Returns—
(a) is bound by the rules of natural justice; and
(b) is not bound by the rules of evidence or any practices or procedures applicable to courts of record, except to the extent that it adopts those rules, practices or procedures; and
(c) must conduct each proceeding with as little formality and technicality as the requirements of the Act permit.

(2) Part 3.10 of the Evidence Act 2008 applies to proceedings in the Court of Disputed Returns.

I heard and considered succinct and cogent arguments from both Dr Fidge and Mr Gisonda. I hope I do no disservice to Dr Fidge's arguments to summarise them as follows:

(a)That on a fair construction…

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 Fidge v McCurdy

Details

AGLC: Fidge v McCurdy [2015] VSC 43
Case: [2015] VSC 43
Decision Date: 20 February 2015 (Written reasons)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fidge v McCurdy was a case heard by the Court of Disputed Returns in Victoria, where the petitioner, Fidge, contested the election of McCurdy as a member of the Legislative Assembly. The petitioner claimed that misleading and deceptive electoral material was produced during the election, thereby invalidating the election result. Fidge appeared in the court without legal representation, while McCurdy sought permission to be represented by an Australian legal practitioner.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the alleged electoral material was indeed misleading and deceptive, and if so, whether this justified the overturning of the election result. Another key issue was whether the court should grant McCurdy's application to be represented by a legal practitioner, considering the petitioner's self-represented status.

The court addressed these issues by first considering the provisions of the Electoral Act 2002 (Vic) and the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic). It found that the petitioner's claims of misleading and deceptive conduct were not substantiated with sufficient evidence to warrant overturning the election. The court emphasised the importance of clear and convincing evidence to support such allegations, which was lacking in this instance. Regarding the representation issue, the court considered the fairness and equality of proceedings and allowed McCurdy to be represented by a legal practitioner, ensuring both parties had an opportunity to present their cases adequately.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of McCurdy's election. The court also ordered that McCurdy be permitted to engage a legal representative to assist in the proceedings, aiming to ensure a fair and just resolution of the dispute.

Orders