Re Culleton

The High Court of Australia, constituted by Gageler J, considered a dispute concerning the validity of the election of Senator Culleton. The matter came before the Court as a reference, with Senator Culleton also filing a summons seeking specific relief.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the provisions of Part XXII, Division 2 of the *Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918* (Cth), which confer jurisdiction on the High Court as the Court of Disputed Returns, were constitutionally valid under Chapter III of the Constitution, particularly concerning the exercise of judicial power. A secondary issue arose regarding the Court's approach to an argument raised by Senator Culleton after the hearing had concluded.

Gageler J determined that the jurisdiction conferred by Part XXII, Division 2 of the *Commonwealth Electoral Act* was a valid exercise of the Parliament's power to constitute courts and vest in them federal jurisdiction. His Honour reasoned that the function of the Court of Disputed Returns, while involving the determination of electoral disputes, was consistent with the judicial power of the Commonwealth. Regarding the late argument, Gageler J applied established principles that generally preclude the introduction of entirely new arguments after the hearing has concluded, unless exceptional circumstances warrant it.

The summons filed by Senator Culleton on 12 January 2017 was dismissed. Senator Culleton's costs of the proceeding on the reference were ordered to be paid by the Commonwealth.