John Vincent Mulholland v Australian Electoral Commission

[2013] HCASL 43

JOHN VINCENT MULHOLLAND

v

AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION & ANOR

[2013] HCASL 43
M101/2012

1. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Jacobson, Cowdroy and Flick JJ) dismissing an appeal against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.  The Tribunal (constituted by Downes J as President, Deputy President Constance and Senior Member Handley) had affirmed the decision of the first respondent (the Australian Electoral Commission) to substitute the second respondent (Mr Zegenhagen) for the applicant as the registered officer of the Democratic Labor Party ("the DLP").

2. In the Tribunal, and again in the Full Court of the Federal Court, the applicant alleged that the substitution of the second respondent for the applicant was not properly made in light of the provisions of the constitution of the DLP and, in particular cl 34.

3. In the Full Court of the Federal Court, the applicant alleged that 17 questions of law arose from the Tribunal's decision.  He sought to adduce fresh evidence.  The Full Court concluded that the applicant should not have leave to adduce further evidence.  The Full Court further held that the Tribunal's construction of the constitution of the DLP was correct and that other questions sought to be agitated by the applicant either were not questions of law arising from the Tribunal's decision or amounted to question of fact.

4. In this Court the applicant describes his principal argument as being that the decision to substitute the second respondent for the applicant as registered officer of the DLP was "beyond the functions and/or powers and/or jurisdiction of the delegate [of the Australian Electoral Commission] in the circumstances that prevailed, where the DLP appeared to be divided and in disputation as to the identity of the secretary".

5. As the applicant does not have legal representation, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

6. The applicant would enjoy insufficient prospects of succeeding in establishing this argument to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal.  No reason is shown to doubt the correctness of the conclusions reached by the Full Court.

7. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
10 April 2013 S.M. Crennan