Reith v The Honourable Mr Justice Morling

The proceedings involved Mr Reith, the plaintiff, seeking a declaration and interlocutory injunction against the Honourable Mr Justice Morling, Colin Anfield Hughes, Ian Castles, Lionel Bowen (as Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia), and the Commonwealth of Australia. The dispute concerned a proposed television advertising campaign by the government in relation to a referendum scheduled for September 3, 1988. Mr Reith contended that the expenditure of money on this advertising campaign would contravene section 11(4) of the *Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984*.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the proposed government television advertising campaign constituted a breach of section 11(4) of the *Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984*. A related issue was the standing of the plaintiff, Mr Reith, to seek injunctive relief, given that the Act specifically empowered the Electoral Commission to seek injunctions in a prescribed court to restrain contraventions of the statute.

Mr Reith argued that the expenditure on the advertisements was a breach of section 11(4) and that the Electoral Commission, responsible for administering the Act, had failed to take proceedings to restrain this expenditure. As Mr Reith lacked direct standing under the Act to seek injunctions, he sought a declaration that the expenditure was unlawful and an injunction. Additionally, he sought a writ of mandamus directed to the Electoral Commission, compelling it to initiate proceedings in a prescribed court to restrain the expenditure. The court was therefore required to consider the interpretation of section 11(4) and the availability of judicial review remedies in this context.