Hudson v Lee

This matter came before the High Court of Australia concerning a petition filed by Mr R.J.N. Hudson against Mr Michael John Lee MP and the Australian Electoral Commission. Mr Hudson objected to legal representation being granted to the respondents, arguing it created an uneven playing field and contravened the petition procedure and the Electoral Act. He sought an adjournment or for Mr Lee to appear without counsel.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether to grant leave for counsel to appear for the respondents, and the procedural implications of a new affidavit filed by the petitioner on the day of the hearing. The Court was also to consider the petitioner's request for a waiver and a notice of motion, and whether these were rendered academic by the respondents' own notices of motion.

The Court, in its discretion, granted leave for counsel to appear for both the first respondent, Mr Lee, and the Australian Electoral Commission. Her Honour indicated that the respondents' notices of motion would be heard first, as their success could render other matters academic. The petitioner was informed he would be given time to debate the issues and was made aware of a new affidavit he had filed that morning, which specified alleged contraventions of sections 352(1) and 327 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 by Mr Lee.