Gunter v Hollingworth

Case [2002] FCA 943

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gunter v Hollingworth [2002] FCA 943

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION (CTH) - Petition deputing election or return - House of Representatives - Court of Disputed returns - summons seeking dismissal of petition - whether petition within jurisdiction of Court of Disputed Returns - where petition not limited to particular Division - where petition challenges entirety of general election - requirement that petition set out facts relied upon - whether satisfied.

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth)
Constitution (Office of Governor) Act 1987 (Qld)

Muldowney v Australian Electoral Commission (1993) 178 CLR 34 App
Pavlekovich-Smith v Australian Electoral Commission (1993) 115 ALR 641 Cited
Sykes v Australian Electoral Commission (1993) 115 ALR 645 Cited
Robertson v Australian Electoral Commission (1993) 116 ALR 407 Cited
Abbotto v Australian Electoral Commission (1997) 144 ALR 352 Cited
McClure v Australian Electoral Commission (1999) 163 ALR 734 Cited
Joosse v Australian Securities and Investment Commission (1998) 159 ALR 260 Cited
Sharples v Arnison & Ors [2001] QCA 518 Appl
Skyring v Crown Solicitor [2001] QSC 350 Appl
Skyring v Electoral Commission of Queensland [2001] QSC 080 Appl
Sharples v Arnison [2001] QCA 274 Appl
Re Skyring’s Application [No 2] (1985) 59 ALJR 561; 58 ALR 629 Cited
Skyring v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (unreported) Qld CA 12 May 1994 Cited
Skyring v Commissioner of Taxation (unreported) Qld CA 25 March 1993 Cited
Re Skyring [1994] 68 ALJR 618 Cited
Re Attorney General (Cth) Ex parte Skyring (1996) 135 ALR 29 Cited
Re Cusack (1985) 66 ALR 93 Cited
Sue v Hill (1999) 199 CLR 462 Cited

RICHARD STEPHEN GUNTER v DR PETER HOLLINGWORTH, MAJOR GENERAL PETER ARNISON AO, PETER DOUGLAS BEATTIE, AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION, ALAN GEORGE SKYRING, JAMES EDGAR STEWART, TREVOR ACWORTH, DONALD CAMERON, DONALD GORDON CAMERON
Q55 OF 2002

COOPER J
BRISBANE
30 JULY 2002


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q55 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

RICHARD STEPHEN GUNTER
APPLICANT

AND:

DR PETER HOLLINGWORTH
FIRST RESPONDENT

MAJ GEN PETER ARNISON
SECOND RESPONDENT

PETER DOUGLAS BEATTIE
THIRD RESPONDENT

AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION
FOURTH RESPONDENT

ALAN GEORGE SKYRING
FIFTH RESPONDENT

JAMES EDGAR STEWART
SIXTH RESPONDENT

TREVOR ACWORTH
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

DONALD CAMERON
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

DONALD GORDON CAMERON
NINTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

COOPER J

DATE OF ORDER:

30 JULY 2002

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The petition be dismissed.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q55 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

RICHARD STEPHEN GUNTER
APPLICANT

AND:

DR PETER HOLLINGWORTH
FIRST RESPONDENT

MAJ GEN PETER ARNISON
SECOND RESPONDENT

PETER DOUGLAS BEATTIE
THIRD RESPONDENT

AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION
FOURTH RESPONDENT

ALAN GEORGE SKYRING
FIFTH RESPONDENT

JAMES EDGAR STEWART
SIXTH RESPONDENT

TREVOR ACWORTH
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

DONALD CAMERON
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

DONALD GORDON CAMERON
NINTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

COOPER J

DATE:

30 JULY 2002

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BACKGROUND

  1. On 12 December 2001, Richard Stephen Gunter filed a petition in the High Court of Australia sitting as the…

Continue reading Gunter v Hollingworth

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Gunter v Hollingworth [2002] FCA 943
Case
[2002] FCA 943
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Gunter v Hollingworth was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute arose from a petition challenging the validity of the 2001 federal election results. The petitioner, Gunter, argued that there were irregularities and misconduct that warranted the setting aside of the election results. The respondents, including Hollingworth, defended the election's legitimacy. The court was required to decide whether the election should be set aside based on the petitioner's claims and whether the statutory requirements were met.

The court needed to determine the scope and application of Section 364 of the relevant Act, which directs the court to be guided by the substantial merits and good conscience of each case. The court had to decide whether this section allowed for a broad inquiry into the election's validity or if it was limited to specific statutory requirements. Additionally, the court examined whether the petitioner had met the thresholds set by Sections 355 and 358 of the Act, which pertain to the grounds for challenging an election.

The court concluded that Section 364 does not permit a general inquiry into the election's validity but requires adherence to the specific provisions of the Act. The court found that the petitioner had not met the statutory requirements set by Sections 355 and 358, and therefore, the petition was not valid. The court emphasised that it could not ignore the provisions of the Act or rewrite the law under the guise of Section 364. Based on these findings, the court dismissed the petition.

The court ordered that the petition be dismissed, confirming that the respondents' position was upheld. The petitioner's claims were found to be insufficient to warrant setting aside the election results, and the election was deemed valid. This decision reinforced the importance of adhering to statutory requirements when challenging electoral outcomes.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The petition be 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

COOPER J
Section 364 of the Act states :“The Court shall be guided by the substantial merits and good conscience of each case without regard to legal forms or technicalities, or whether the evidence before it is in accordance with the law of evidence or not.”Section 364 directs the Court as to how it should go about the task of deciding the issues presented under the Act by the petition. It does not give the Court power to re-write the Act or ignore provisions contained in the Act. The section does not exonerate the Court from the application of substantive rules of law: Sue v Hill (1999) 199 CLR 462 at 485; McClure v Australian Electoral Commission at 742. Accordingly, the requirements of s 355(a) and (b) and (c) and s 358(1) of the Act may not be disregarded and a general wide ranging enquiry held as to why the general election held on 10 November 2001 should be set aside.CONCLUSION I am satisfied that the fourth respondent makes out both grounds of objection and that the appropriate course is to dismiss the petition pursuant to the power conferred by s 360 (1)(viii) of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: COOPER J

Full text does not contain this section.