Lesage v Fisher Summary

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TASMANIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

TG 31 of 1996

BETWEEN:

LANCE LESAGE
APPLICANT

AND:

BRIAN FISHER
FIRST RESPONDENT

CHARLES WOLF
SECOND RESPONDENT

AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HEEREY J

DATE:

25 AUGUST 1998

PLACE:

HOBART

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

There are before the Court two notices of motion. One dated 13 February 1997 by the second respondent and one dated 14 August 1998 by the third respondent, the Australian Electoral Commission. They seek orders that the petition be dismissed. The petition itself was filed on 22 November 1996, that is getting on for two years ago. It concerns the election held on 12 October 1996 for the Hobart Ward of the Tasmanian Regional Council of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.

I think it is self-evident that an important matter such as this has to be prosecuted through the courts with reasonable diligence. The applicant does not appear today. He telephoned the District Registrar yesterday. The following is a copy of the note of that conversation taken by the District Registrar. “He”, that is the applicant,

“...advises that he will not be attending Court tomorrow due to his medical condition. I asked him whether he had any new material medical or otherwise that he wanted the Court to take note of and he referred to the medical reports on file.
I warned him that depending on what application is made to the Court the Court may dismiss his application in his absence. He indicated his displeasure about the prospect of this happening in his absence.”

I infer in all the circumstances that the applicant has not taken reasonable steps to prosecute this matter and there is no reasonable prospect of him doing so in the future. Accordingly the petition will be dismissed.

I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Heerey

Associate:

Dated: 25 August 1998

Counsel for the Applicant: No appearance

Counsel for the first Respondent: No appearance

Counsel for the second Respondent: Ms A Bannon

Solicitor for the second Respondent: Murdoch Clarke Cosgrove & Drake

Counsel for the third Respondent: Mr P Bowen

Solicitor for the third Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

Date of Hearing:

25 August 1998

Date of Judgment: 25 August 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Lance Lesage sought to challenge the outcome of the Hobart Ward election held on 12 October 1996 for the Tasmanian Regional Council of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. The election results were disputed by Lesage, leading to a petition being filed on 22 November 1996. The respondents to the petition are Brian Fisher, the successful candidate, Charles Wolf, the second placed candidate, and the Australian Electoral Commission. The Court was presented with two notices of motion from the second and third respondents, seeking dismissal of the petition on the basis that the applicant had not prosecuted the matter with reasonable diligence.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant had taken reasonable steps to prosecute the petition in a timely manner, particularly given the significant delay of nearly two years. The Court considered the applicant's absence on the day of the hearing due to medical reasons and his failure to provide any new material evidence. Justice Heerey determined that the applicant had not taken reasonable steps to prosecute the matter and there was no reasonable prospect of him doing so in the future.

Justice Heerey found that the applicant had not acted with the necessary diligence in prosecuting the petition, particularly in light of his absence from the hearing and his failure to present new evidence. The Court was also mindful of the importance of timely resolution of electoral disputes and the need for courts to manage their caseloads efficiently. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the applicant had not taken reasonable steps to prosecute the matter.

The Court ordered that the petition be dismissed, effectively ending Lesage's challenge to the election results. The decision underscores the importance of prosecuting legal matters with due diligence and highlights the Court's role in ensuring that cases are managed in a timely and efficient manner.

Lesage v Fisher

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
TASMANIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	TG 31 of 1996

JUDGE:	HEEREY J
DATE:	25 AUGUST 1998
PLACE:	HOBART

Counsel for the Applicant:	No appearance
Counsel for the first Respondent:	No appearance
Counsel for the second Respondent:	Ms A Bannon
Solicitor for the second Respondent:	Murdoch Clarke Cosgrove & Drake
Counsel for the third Respondent:	Mr P Bowen
Solicitor for the third Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	25 August 1998
Date of Judgment:	25 August 1998