Legal Research
Cases
Roberts v Jeffery

Roberts v Jeffery

Case [2003] NSWSC 162 11 April 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: ROBERTS v JEFFERY & 4 Ors [2003] NSWSC 162

HEARING DATE(S): 20/2/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 April 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J at 1

DECISION: Amended summons dismissed; Plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs as agreed or assessed

CATCHWORDS: Dismissal from civic office - irregularity in the manner of election to office

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918
Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth)
Local Government Act 1993
Local Government (Elections) Regulation 1998
Parliamentary Electorates and Election Act 1912

CASES CITED: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Bourne v Murphy (1996) 92 LGERA 329
Bridge v Bowen (1916) 21 CLR 582
Bruce v Cole (1998) 45 NSWLR 163
Re Collins; Ex parte Hockings (1989) 167 CLR 522
Evans v Crichton-Browne (1981) 147 CLR 169
Hill v Green [1999] NSWCA 477; 48 NSWLR 161
Hodge v The King (1907) 5 CLR 373
Minister for Immigration v Eshetu [1999] HCA 21; 197 CLR 611
R v Gray; ex parte Marsh (1985) 157 CLR 351

PARTIES :
Lennard Bruce Roberts (Plaintiff)
Victor Robert Jeffery (1st Defendant)
Jack Ireland (2nd Defendant)
Barry Clendinning (3rd Defendant)
William Coombe (4th Defendant)
Administrative Decisions Tribunal (5th Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 30062/02

COUNSEL: R. Colquhoun (Plaintiff)
M.J. Griffiths SC / B. Zipser (1-4 Defendants)

SOLICITORS: JA Vaughan & Walker Smith (Plaintiff)
Public Interest Advocacy Centre (1st - 4th Defendants)
I V Knight (5th Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

BELL J

Friday 11 April 2003

30062/02 Lennard Bruce ROBERTS v Victor Robert JEFFERY & Ors
JUDGMENT

1 BELL J: The plaintiff was elected as a counsellor of the Great Lakes Local Council (“the Council”) at a by-election held on Saturday 1 July 2000. The poll was declared on 5 July 2000.

2 On 18 September 2000 the first, second, third and fourth defendants (“the defendants”) filed an application with the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) seeking to have the plaintiff dismissed from civic office. The application was brought pursuant to s 329 of the Local Government Act 1993 (“the LGA”). Pursuant to s 329(2)(a) of the LGA the Tribunal may order the dismissal of a person from civic office if there has been any irregularity in the manner in which the person has been elected to that office.

3 The defendants asserted that there had been irregularities in the manner in which the plaintiff had been elected to his office. These irregularities comprised the placement of an electoral advertisement in the Manning Great Lakes Extra newspaper and the display of an election poster on various dates bearing the logo of the National Party of Australia.

4 At a directions hearing held before the Deputy President of the Tribunal the parties were directed to file and serve submissions on the issue of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to entertain the defendants’ application. Specifically, the parties were asked to address the question of whether “any irregularity in the manner in which…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Roberts v Jeffery

Details

AGLC: Roberts v Jeffery [2003] NSWSC 162
Case: [2003] NSWSC 162
Decision Date: 11 April 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Roberts v Jeffery involved a dispute regarding the dismissal of an individual from their civic office. The applicant, Roberts, sought relief from the court after being dismissed from their position as a local council member. The basis of the challenge was the alleged irregularity in the manner of the election that led to the applicant's appointment. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, which has jurisdiction to review decisions of local government bodies.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the alleged irregularity in the election process was significant enough to warrant the dismissal of the applicant from their civic office. The court had to determine whether the irregularity was material and whether it affected the validity of the election results. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the local council had the power to dismiss the applicant under the relevant legislative framework.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the evidence presented regarding the nature and extent of the alleged irregularity. The court considered the statutory provisions governing local government elections and the principles of natural justice. The court found that the irregularity did not materially affect the outcome of the election and did not undermine the validity of the results. Furthermore, the court held that the local council did not have the power to dismiss the applicant from their office based on the irregularity alone. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the applicant, finding that the dismissal was unlawful.

As a result of the court's decision, the applicant's dismissal from their civic office was declared invalid. The court may have made further orders to reinstate the applicant to their position or to provide other remedies as appropriate. However, the specific details of any additional orders are not provided in the text. The case underscores the importance of ensuring that elections to civic office are conducted in accordance with the law and the need for proper procedures to be followed in the event of any irregularities.

Orders