Hudson v Lee

This matter concerned an application for costs before the High Court of Australia. The parties involved were Mr. R.J.N. Hudson, appearing in person, and the first respondent, represented by Mr. J. McCarthy, QC. The Commonwealth was also involved, represented by Mr. S. Gageler. The Australian Electoral Commission sought to be excused from proceedings and was not considered involved in the costs application.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Commonwealth should be ordered to pay the costs of the parties to the proceedings. This question arose in the context of a prior judgment delivered by the Court on 6 August 1993, which had granted leave for written submissions on costs. The Court was required to consider the relevant legislative provisions and any applicable case law concerning the power to order the Commonwealth to pay costs.

Mr. McCarthy, for the first respondent, referred the Court to section 360(4) of the relevant Act, which grants the Court of Disputed Returns the power to order the Commonwealth to pay costs in appropriate circumstances. He also drew the Court's attention to the High Court's decision in *Nile v Wood*, which had considered this power. The reasoning in *Nile v Wood* involved a defective petition where the allegations made concerning the respondent did not sufficiently support the relief sought. The submissions were to proceed from this point, with Mr. Hudson also having the opportunity to make his submissions.