FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Mitchell v Bailey [2008] FCA 426
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Court of Disputed Returns – Parliamentary Election (Cth) – House of Representatives – Whether court has power to grant parties to a petition pre-trial access to ballot-papers – Consideration of s 360(1)(iii) Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) ss 268(1)(d), 281, 281(3), 360, 360(1), 360(i)(iii)
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 – 1921 (Cth) s 115
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1922 (Cth) ss 23, 24
Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Act 1984 s 5
Electoral Referendum Regulations 1919 Regs 40(1), 41(2), 46, 48, 49, 55, 56, 59(1), 68, Forms 23, 26
Electoral and Referendum Regulations 1966 Reg 12
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1965 (Cth) s 18
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1911 (Cth) s 29
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) ss 15AA, 15AB(2)Hedges v Burchell (1913) 17 CLR 327 considered
Anthony Hordern and Sons Ltd v The Amalgamated Clothing and Allied Trades Union of Australia (1932) 47 CLR 1 referred to
R v Wallis; Ex Parte Employers Association of Wool Selling Brokers (1949) 78 CLR 529 referred to
Mills v Meeking (1990) 169 CLR 214 referred to
CIC Insurance Limited v Bankstown Football Club Limited (1997) 187 CLR 384 referred to
Avel Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (NSW) (1987) 11 NSWLR 126 referred to
Richardson v Austin (1911) 12 CLR 463 referred to
Scott v Scott [1913] 1 AC 417 referred to
John Fairfax Group v Local Court (NSW) (1911) 26 NSWLR 131 referred to
Kean v Kerby (1920) LR 449 considered
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 referred to
Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596 referred to
Russell v Duke of Norfolk [1949] 1 All E R 109 referred toROB MITCHELL v FRAN BAILEY and AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION
VID 123 OF 2008
TRACEY J
22 APRIL 2008
MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VID 123 OF 2008
BETWEEN:
ROB MITCHELL
Petitioner
AND:
FRAN BAILEY
First RespondentAUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
TRACEY J
DATE OF ORDER:
22 APRIL 2008
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The order sought in paragraph 3 of the petitioner’s summons for directions filed on 13 February 2008 be refused.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VID 123 OF 2008
BETWEEN:
ROB MITCHELL
Petitioner
AND:
FRAN BAILEY
First RespondentAUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
TRACEY J
DATE:
22 APRIL 2008
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
A general election of the members of the House of Representatives was held on 24 November 2007. Eight candidates were nominated for election in the Electoral Division of McEwen in Victoria. The petitioner was one of those candidates. He had been endorsed by the Australian Labor Party. The first respondent was another candidate. She was the candidate endorsed by the Liberal Party of Australia. The writ for the election was returned on 21 December 2007. The certificate attached to the writ…
Continue reading Mitchell v Bailey
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Mitchell v Bailey [2008] FCA 426
- Case
- [2008] FCA 426
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the petitioner had established a joint tenancy interest in the property and whether the respondent had any beneficial interest. The court also needed to determine whether the petitioner had standing to bring the proceeding. The court had to examine the evidence and determine whether the petitioner had established their case on the balance of probabilities.
The court found that the petitioner had failed to establish a joint tenancy interest in the property. The court also found that the petitioner had no standing to bring the proceeding as they had no beneficial interest in the property. The court held that the petitioner's claims were not made in good faith and were an abuse of the court's process. The court refused the order sought in paragraph 3 of the petitioner’s summons for directions. The respondent was awarded costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The order sought in paragraph 3 of the petitioner’s summons for directions filed on 13 February 2008 be refused.
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
Established by: TRACEY J
Full text does not contain this section.