FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hodgetts v Australian Electoral Commission [1999] FCA 135
DOUGLAS EDWIN JOHN HODGETTS v AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION
QG 115 of 1998DOWSETT J
16 FEBRUARY 1999
BRISBANE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
QG 115 OF 1998
BETWEEN:
DOUGLAS EDWIN JOHN HODGETTS
ApplicantAND:
AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION
RespondentJUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
16 FEBRUARY 1999
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed.
2.The applicant, Douglas Edwin John Hodgetts, pay the respondent's costs of these proceedings including reserved costs
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
QG 115 OF 1998
BETWEEN:
DOUGLAS EDWIN JOHN HODGETTS
ApplicantAND:
AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION
Respondent
JUDGE:
DOWSETT J
DATE:
16 FEBRUARY 1999
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is a motion to dismiss an application commenced on 2 October last year, the day before the last federal election, in which the applicant sought postponement of that election, a declaration that it was null and void and an order that a new election take place.
The basis of the applicant's argument at that time was that the Senate ballot paper was unfair to independent candidates. I decided that it was inappropriate to grant interlocutory relief, partly because the validity of the paper seemed to be established by decisions in the Court of Disputed Returns and partly on the basis of the balance of convenience. The Australian Electoral Commission now seeks to strike out the application. On its face the application serves no useful purpose as the election has taken place, and any challenge to the validity of the outcome should be by way of proceedings in the Court of Disputed Returns.
The applicant, Mr Hodgetts, indicates that he does not wish to continue to challenge the validity of the election in any event, his concern now being with the wider question, namely, the validity of the Act as a whole. In those circumstances, no good purpose will be served by keeping the existing application on foot, and it will therefore be dismissed.
I order that the applicant, Douglas Edwin John Hodgetts, pay the respondent's costs of these proceedings including reserved costs.
I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett. Associate:
Dated: 16 February 1999
The Applicant appeared in Person. Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 16 February 1999 Date of Judgment: 16 February 1999
- AGLC
- Hodgetts v Australian Electoral Commission [1999] FCA 135
- Case
- [1999] FCA 135
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the requirement that the number of members in the House of Representatives should be, as nearly as practicable, equal, was a constitutional requirement. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the redistribution of electoral divisions was valid under the Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) and whether the writ for the Division of Hughes was valid. The court examined the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Section 24, which mandates that the number of members in the House of Representatives should be, as nearly as practicable, equal.
The court concluded that the requirement for equal representation in the House of Representatives was not constitutionally mandated and could be left to the discretion of Parliament. The court found that the Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) was valid and that the redistribution of electoral divisions was properly conducted under the Act. Consequently, the court dismissed Hodgetts' application and ordered that he pay the Electoral Commission's costs of the proceedings, including reserved costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed.
2. The applicant, Douglas Edwin John Hodgetts, pay the respondent's costs of these proceedings including reserved costs
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.