Re Gallagher

Case

[2018] HCATrans 85


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Re Gallagher [2018] HCATrans 85 [2018] HCATrans 85

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, considered questions referred to it concerning Senator Katy Gallagher. The Attorney-General of the Commonwealth sought orders for a special count of ballot papers cast in the election for two senators for the Australian Capital Territory, pursuant to a writ issued by the Governor-General on 16 May 2016. The purpose of this special count was to determine the candidate entitled to be elected to the place for which Senator Gallagher had been returned.

The Court was required to determine the appropriate procedure for conducting this special count and to make orders for its execution. This involved considering the directions proposed by the Attorney-General for the conduct of the count and the reporting of its results. The Court also needed to address any potential issues that might arise during the counting process.

The Court reasoned that a special count was necessary to resolve the dispute regarding Senator Gallagher's election. It made orders directing the Australian Electoral Officer of the Australian Capital Territory to undertake a special count of the ballot papers. These orders stipulated that the count should be conducted in accordance with specific directions annexed to the Attorney-General's summons, which were adopted by the Court. The Court also granted liberty to apply to a Justice in respect of any further questions concerning the method of counting. Upon completion, the Australian Electoral Officer was ordered to report to the Court the two candidates who would be elected according to the rules set out in section 273 of the *Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918* (Cth).
Details

Areas of Law

  • Administrative Law

  • Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Jurisdiction

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Statutory Construction

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0