Getup Ltd v Electoral Commissioner

Case [2010] FCA 869


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Getup Ltd v Electoral Commissioner [2010] FCA 869

Citation: Getup Ltd v Electoral Commissioner [2010] FCA 869
Parties: GETUP LTD and SOPHIE JESSICA TREVITT v ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER
File number(s): NSD 917 of 2010
Judge: PERRAM J
Date of judgment: 13 August 2010
Catchwords: ELECTIONS – Enrolment – Electronic submission of enrolment claim – Enrolment claim digitally signed using an electronic device – Whether requirements of Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth) satisfied – Whether enrolment claim was “in order” for purposes of s 102 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth)
Legislation: Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) ss 93, 98AA, 98, 99, 101, 102, 336
Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth) ss 6, 8, 10
Cases cited: Goodman v J Eban [1954] 1 QBD 550 cited
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611 cited
Date of hearing: 12 August 2010
Date of last submissions: 12 August 2010
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 31
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr J Kirk with Ms A Rao
Solicitor for the Applicants: Marque Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J Renwick
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 917 of 2010

BETWEEN:

GETUP LTD
First Applicant

SOPHIE JESSICA TREVITT
Second Applicant

AND:

ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER
Respondent

JUDGE:

PERRAM J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 AUGUST 2010

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The decision of the delegate made on 6 August 2010 be set aside.

2.The respondent pay the applicants’ costs.

AND THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

3.The second applicant’s claim lodged with the respondent on 22 July 2010 is “in order” for the purposes of s 102(1)(b) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth).

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 917 of 2010

BETWEEN:

GETUP LTD
First Applicant

SOPHIE JESSICA TREVITT
Second Applicant

AND:

ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER
Respondent

JUDGE:

PERRAM J

DATE:

13 AUGUST 2010

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This case concerns the Federal election to be held on Saturday next, 21 August 2010.  That election was announced by the Prime Minister on Saturday 17 July 2010.  On the Monday following that announcement the second applicant, Ms Trevitt, who had not previously been enrolled as a voter applied to the Electoral Commissioner (“the Commissioner”) to be enrolled in the electoral division of Grayndler.  The application was prepared using a laptop with access to the internet and with a device known as a digital pen which can be used on the laptop’s trackpad.

  2. The laptop, which was provided to Ms Trevitt by an officer of the first applicant, Getup Ltd (“Getup”), was used by Ms Trevitt to access the world wide web and, in particular, to access a site maintained by Getup:…

Continue reading Getup Ltd v Electoral Commissioner

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Getup Ltd v Electoral Commissioner [2010] FCA 869
Case
[2010] FCA 869
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Getup Ltd, an incorporated association, and one of its members, Ms. Michelle Loten, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Electoral Commissioner, who was the respondent. The dispute revolved around whether an enrolment claim submitted electronically and digitally signed was valid under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) and if it satisfied the requirements of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth). The applicants argued that their enrolment claims, which were electronically submitted and signed, should be considered "in order" under section 102 of the Electoral Act, thus allowing them to be registered voters. The central legal issue before the court was whether the enrolment claims submitted via digital means met the statutory criteria to be deemed "in order" and, by extension, if they complied with the provisions of the Electronic Transactions Act.

The court examined the statutory language of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) and the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth) to determine the validity of the digital enrolment claims. The court held that the statutory language did not preclude enrolment claims from being submitted electronically, provided that they were in a form that could be relied upon in legal proceedings. Given that the enrolment claims were digitally signed and met the criteria for electronic transactions as per the Electronic Transactions Act, the court found that these claims were indeed "in order" under section 102(1)(b) of the Electoral Act. Consequently, the court set aside the decision of the delegate, which had deemed the enrolment claims invalid, and declared that Ms. Loten's enrolment claim was valid for the purposes of the Electoral Act. The court also ordered the Electoral Commissioner to pay the applicants’ costs.

In conclusion, the court found in favour of Getup Ltd and Ms. Loten, confirming that their enrolment claims, submitted and signed electronically, were "in order" and thus valid under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth). The decision of the Electoral Commissioner was overturned, and the respondent was directed to pay the applicants' costs. The court's ruling clarified that enrolment claims meeting the legal standards for electronic transactions are permissible and enforceable within the electoral framework.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision of the delegate made on 6 August 2010 be set aside.

2. The respondent pay the applicants’ costs.

AND THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

3. The second applicant’s claim lodged with the respondent on 22 July 2010 is “in order” for the purposes of s 102(1)(b) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth).

Note:

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.