Pavlekovich-Smith v Australian Electoral Commission

The applicant, Pavlekovich-Smith, sought judicial review of a decision by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) to refuse to register his political party, the "Australian Protectionist Party". The dispute concerned whether the AEC had correctly applied the provisions of the *Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918* (Cth) in refusing registration. The matter came before Dawson J of the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the name "Australian Protectionist Party" was substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the name of another registered political party, namely the "Protectionist Party", for the purposes of section 129(1)(a) of the *Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918* (Cth). This section prohibits the registration of a party if its name is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, the name of an existing registered party.

Dawson J reasoned that the test for substantial identity or deceptive similarity under section 129(1)(a) requires a consideration of the overall impression created by the names, not merely a comparison of individual words. His Honour found that while the names shared the word "Protectionist", the addition of "Australian" to the applicant's proposed party name created a distinct and different impression. The Court considered the potential for confusion and concluded that the names were not substantially identical or deceptively similar, as the distinguishing word "Australian" was sufficient to differentiate the two.

Consequently, Dawson J ordered that the AEC's decision to refuse registration be set aside and that the AEC be directed to register the "Australian Protectionist Party".