Gerard Brock Rennick v Benjamin Riley - [2024] QSC 130

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Gerard Brock Rennick v Benjamin Riley and Ors [2024] QSC 130

PARTIES:

GERARD BROCK RENNICK

(applicant)

v
BENJAMIN RILEY

(first respondent)
KATE SAMIOS
(second respondent)
ALBERT CRAIG RAY
(third respondent)
ROBERT WALTER JOHN TUCKER
(fourth respondent)
LAWRENCE JAMES SPRINGBORG
(fifth respondent)
STUART DONALD JOHN FRASER
(sixth respondent)
JOSHUA AULD
(seventh respondent)
DAVID BARTLETT
(eighth respondent)
TRENT BELLING
(ninth respondent)
JESSICA CONNELLAN
(tenth respondent)
RACHEL CONNORS
(eleventh respondent)
MITCHELL DICKENS
(twelfth respondent)
DAVID CRISAFULLI
(thirteenth respondent)
PETER CRAIG DUTTON
(fourteenth respondent)
WILLIAM GLASSON
(fifteenth respondent)
ANTHONY GLEESON
(sixteenth respondent)
CYNTHIA HARDY
(seventeenth respondent)
DOUGLAS GORDON HAWKES
(eighteenth respondent)
KAY HULL
(nineteenth respondent)
NATHANIEL HUTTON
(twentieth respondent)
DAVID LITTLEPROUD
(twenty-first respondent)
MELINA MORGAN
(twenty-second respondent)
ARI OLIVER
(twenty-third respondent)
JOHN OLSEN
(twenty-fourth respondent)
ROBERT PITT
(twenty-fifth respondent)
SUSANNE QUINN
(twenty-sixth respondent)
ADRIAN SCHRINNER
(twenty-seventh respondent)
KATE SMITH
(twenty-eighth respondent)
PHILIP SPANN
(twenty-ninth respondent)
MICHAEL TROUT
(thirtieth respondent)
PETER WILSON
(thirty-first respondent)
ANDREW WALL
(thirty-second respondent)
GEORGE BRANDIS

(thirty-third respondent)

FILE NO:

BS 5278 of 2024

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 June 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 May 2024

JUDGE:

Martin SJA

ORDER:

The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS – INTERFERENCE IN INTERNAL MANAGEMENT – GENERALLY – where the Liberal National Party of Queensland (LNPQ) conducted a pre-selection for Senate election candidates – where Senator Rennick, the applicant, lost the contest for the third position on the LNP ticket by three votes – where Senator Rennick lodged an appeal to the LNPQ Disputes Committee – where the Disputes Committee dismissed the appeal – where seven months later Senator Rennick sought to appeal the Disputes Committee decision to State Council – where State Executive decided Senator Rennick’s appeal was out of time – where Senator Rennick seeks, among other things, a declaration that he is entitled to appeal the Disputes Committee decision to the State Council and that his entitlement to appeal has not been lost by the effluxion of time – where Senator Rennick seeks an injunction requiring State Council to hear and determine the appeal in accordance with the LNPQ Constitution – whether the dispute is justiciable

ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – GENERAL MATTERS – CONSTITUTION – where Senator Rennick sought to appeal a decision of LNPQ Disputes Committee to State Council, seven months after the decision was made – where State Executive decided Senator Rennick’s appeal was brought out of time – whether there is a time limit for appeals to State Council under the LNPQ Constitution – whether Senator Rennick’s appeal was brought within a reasonable time

Asmar v Albanese (2022) 68 VR 1; [2022] VSCA 19, not followed
Asmar v Albanese (No 4) (2021) 67 VR 202; [2021] VSC 672, applied
Baldwin v Everingham [1993] 1 Qd R 10, not followed
Butler v Mulholland (No 2) [2013] VSC 662, cited
Camenzuli v Morrison (2022) 107 NSWLR 439; [2022] NSWCA 51,…

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 Gerard Brock Rennick v Benjamin Riley 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: [2024] QSC 130
Decision Date: 20 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gerard Brock Rennick initiated legal proceedings against Benjamin Riley, a member of the Liberal National Party of Queensland (LNPQ). Rennick, a senator, contested his loss in the pre-selection for the third position on the LNP ticket for the Senate election, which he lost by a narrow margin of three votes. Following the decision, Rennick appealed to the LNPQ Disputes Committee, which dismissed his appeal. Rennick subsequently sought to appeal this decision to the State Council seven months later, but the State Executive ruled his appeal was out of time. Rennick sought declarations and an injunction to compel the State Council to hear his appeal, arguing that his right to appeal had not been lost due to the passage of time.

The central legal issues in this case were whether the dispute concerning the internal management of the LNPQ was justiciable and whether there was a time limit for appeals to the State Council as per the LNPQ Constitution. The Court examined whether the Electoral Act conferred jurisdiction on the courts to determine disputes about the selection of candidates for federal Parliamentary elections and if the Act mandated that endorsed candidates be selected by the means provided in the party's constitution.

The Court found that the decision in Camenzuli, which held that disputes about the Constitution of a registered political party under the Electoral Act were not justiciable, was binding unless the Court was satisfied it was plainly wrong. The Court was not convinced that the decision in Camenzuli was wrong. It reasoned that the Electoral Act does not provide for the incorporation of political parties or directly give legal force to their constitutions. Additionally, the Court noted that an implicit right to litigate about candidate endorsements could frustrate the provisions of the Act, which leaves the selection process to the political party and mandates timely nominations for candidature.

The Court concluded that the dispute was not justiciable, and the application was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The Court then considered Camenzuli and said that the justiciability of disputes about the Constitution of a registered political party under the Electoral Act formed the basis of the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal to dismiss the appeal in that case. That the justiciability conclusion was part of the ratio of that case was accepted by the appellant. Thus, the relevant part of the decision in Camenzuli was binding on the Western Australian Court of Appeal unless that court was satisfied that it was plainly wrong. The court was not so satisfied. The Court said:“[65] We are not persuaded that the decision in Camenzuli is wrong let alone plainly wrong. We cannot see anything in the Electoral Act which gives the courts jurisdiction to determine disputes about the application of the rules of unincorporated political parties, which are not otherwise enforceable, in relation to the selection of candidates for federal Parliamentary elections.[66] While the Electoral Act provides for the registration of political parties, it does not provide for their incorporation. While the Act requires an eligible political party to have a constitution which must be lodged with the Electoral Commissioner, it does not provide for what the constitution must contain (other than that it must set out the aims of the party) and does not directly give any legal force to the constitution. There is no prescription of the process for the endorsement of candidates. The role of the registered officer in relation to nominations is merely to be the conduit of information to the Electoral Commissioner in a context where the legislation leaves it to the political party to decide who it endorses. It does not mandate that endorsed candidates be selected by a means provided for in the constitution of the party as opposed to by some other means.[67] Further, the implication which the appellant invites the court to draw from the terms of the Electoral Act appears inconsonant with the very short time between the issue of writs and the date for nominations for which the Act provides. An implicit right to litigate about whether candidates were validly endorsed by a political party would tend to frustrate those provisions. The decisions in Asmar and Camenzuli show that some disputes of this kind can be resolved expeditiously. However, it cannot be expected that all disputes can be resolved so quickly, or that the courts could deal with a multitude of disputes of the kind that preselection contests are apt to generate within the time provided for the nomination. In a context where nomination is an essential prerequisite for candidature, the implication invited by the appellant would lead to the litigation of disputes that could imperil the capacity of a political party to nominate candidates within the required time prescribed by the Act. That consideration strongly counts against the drawing of the implication for which the appellant contends.” (emphasis added)The spectre of the “rogue” official

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Gerard Brock Rennick v Benjamin Riley and Ors [2024] QSC 130
PARTIES:	GERARD BROCK RENNICK (applicant) v BENJAMIN RILEY (first respondent) KATE SAMIOS (second respondent) ALBERT CRAIG RAY (third respondent) ROBERT WALTER JOHN TUCKER (fourth respondent) LAWRENCE JAMES SPRINGBORG (fifth respondent) STUART DONALD JOHN FRASER (sixth respondent) JOSHUA AULD (seventh respondent) DAVID BARTLETT (eighth respondent) TRENT BELLING (ninth respondent) JESSICA CONNELLAN (tenth respondent) RACHEL CONNORS (eleventh respondent) MITCHELL DICKENS (twelfth respondent) DAVID CRISAFULLI (thirteenth respondent) PETER CRAIG DUTTON (fourteenth respondent) WILLIAM GLASSON (fifteenth respondent) ANTHONY GLEESON (sixteenth respondent) CYNTHIA HARDY (seventeenth respondent) DOUGLAS GORDON HAWKES (eighteenth respondent) KAY HULL (nineteenth respondent) NATHANIEL HUTTON (twentieth respondent) DAVID LITTLEPROUD (twenty-first respondent) MELINA MORGAN (twenty-second respondent) ARI OLIVER (twenty-third respondent) JOHN OLSEN (twenty-fourth respondent) ROBERT PITT (twenty-fifth respondent) SUSANNE QUINN (twenty-sixth respondent) ADRIAN SCHRINNER (twenty-seventh respondent) KATE SMITH (twenty-eighth respondent) PHILIP SPANN (twenty-ninth respondent) MICHAEL TROUT (thirtieth respondent) PETER WILSON (thirty-first respondent) ANDREW WALL (thirty-second respondent) GEORGE BRANDIS (thirty-third respondent)
FILE NO:	BS 5278 of 2024
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	20 June 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 May 2024
JUDGE:	Martin SJA
ORDER:	The application is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS – INTERFERENCE IN INTERNAL MANAGEMENT – GENERALLY – where the Liberal National Party of Queensland (LNPQ) conducted a pre-selection for Senate election candidates – where Senator Rennick, the applicant, lost the contest for the third position on the LNP ticket by three votes – where Senator Rennick lodged an appeal to the LNPQ Disputes Committee – where the Disputes Committee dismissed the appeal – where seven months later Senator Rennick sought to appeal the Disputes Committee decision to State Council – where State Executive decided Senator Rennick’s appeal was out of time – where Senator Rennick seeks, among other things, a declaration that he is entitled to appeal the Disputes Committee decision to the State Council and that his entitlement to appeal has not been lost by the effluxion of time – where Senator Rennick seeks an injunction requiring State Council to hear and determine the appeal in accordance with the LNPQ Constitution – whether the dispute is justiciable ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUBS – GENERAL MATTERS – CONSTITUTION – where Senator Rennick sought to appeal a decision of LNPQ Disputes Committee to State Council, seven months after the decision was made – where State Executive decided Senator Rennick’s appeal was brought out of time – whether there is a time limit for appeals to State Council under the LNPQ Constitution – whether Senator Rennick’s appeal was brought within a reasonable time Asmar v Albanese (2022) 68 VR 1; [2022] VSCA 19, not followed Asmar v Albanese (No 4) (2021) 67 VR 202; [2021] VSC 672, applied Baldwin v Everingham [1993] 1 Qd R 10, not followed Butler v Mulholland (No 2) [2013] VSC 662, cited Camenzuli v Morrison (2022) 107 NSWLR 439; [2022] NSWCA 51,…