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, 10Cases cited: Goodman v J Eban [1954] 1 QBD 550 cited
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611 citedDate 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 ApplicantSOPHIE JESSICA TREVITT
Second ApplicantAND: 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 ApplicantSOPHIE JESSICA TREVITT
Second ApplicantAND: ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER
Respondent
JUDGE:
PERRAM J
DATE:
13 AUGUST 2010
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
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.
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
- AGLC
- Getup Ltd v Electoral Commissioner [2010] FCA 869
- Case
- [2010] FCA 869
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.