Sharples v Hill

[1999] HCATrans 211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SITTING AS THE COURT OF
DISPUTED RETURNS

Office of the Registry
  Brisbane  No B49 of 1998

B e t w e e n -

TERRY PATRICK SHARPLES

Petitioner

and

HEATHER HILL

First Respondent

THE AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION

Second Respondent

CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT BRISBANE ON THURSDAY, 29 JULY 1999, AT 11.30 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HIS HONOUR:   Before we commence I should say that the Registrar informs me that he holds a letter from the solicitor for the first respondent advising that the first respondent will not attend the further hearing of the matter today.  So I think all I should do today is make orders to dispose of Mr Sharples’ petition and hear submissions on any other matters that anybody wants to make submissions on.

Mr Swan, you appear for the Electoral Commissioner?

MR M.C. SWAN:   Yes, I do, your Honour.  (instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor)

HIS HONOUR:   Are there any other appearances?

MR M.B. BELCHER:   Yes, your Honour.  I appear for the Commonwealth in case there is an order for costs sought against the Commonwealth.  (instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor)

HIS HONOUR:   All right.  Mr Sharples, you are here representing yourself again.

MR T.P. SHARPLES:   Good morning, your Honour.  Yes.

HIS HONOUR:   Mr Swan, I take it there is no application for costs by your client.

MR SWAN:   I did not quite hear that, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   There is no application of any kind by your client?

MR SWAN:   No.  My client’s submission is that it should simply bear its own costs and pay no one else’s and no one pay ours, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  I think, first of all, I should order – I should make a declaration, perhaps, to reflect the answers to the questions given by the Full Court.

MR SWAN:   If I might be heard on that, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, certainly.

MR SWAN:   It was to be my submission that what should happen with Mr Sharples’ petition simply that it be dismissed.  Effectively the decision and the orders made by Chief Justice Gleeson in the matter of Sue v Hill really resolve the substantive issues and anything that – if your order today were to reflect the terms of that it would, in effect ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   It would be repetitious.

MR SWAN:   It would be superfluous, in my submission, with respect, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   That sounds right.  What do you think, Mr Sharples?  The other petition has triumphed.  It is your triumph too.

MR SHARPLES:   I think we are finished, your Honour.  I think I have made all the submissions that I can.

HIS HONOUR:   I think what Mr Swan says is right, that the orders that have been made in the other petition reflect all the relief that would be available to both petitioners consistently with the answers to the questions given by the Full Court, which still leaves the matter of costs on which I will hear submissions.

MR SHARPLES:   I understand.

HIS HONOUR:   Do you have any application in relation to costs?

MR SHARPLES:   No, I have no application, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   You do not seek any costs?

MR SHARPLES:   I just seek my costs.  I think they were ordered in the first instance to be paid by the Commonwealth.  As to today’s ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   I do not think there is any order been made in that regard yet, but you would seek an order for costs on your petition, is that right?

MR SHARPLES:   That is correct.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  Mr Swan, what have you got to say?

MR SWAN:   Your Honour, in my submission the only costs issues outstanding are the costs of the filing of the petition itself, the appearances before your Honour on 1 April this year and the costs of today’s appearances.  Everything else in respect of costs has been effectively dealt with by the ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   What about Mr Sharples’ costs in Canberra?  He went to Canberra and argued the matter in Canberra.

MR SWAN:   Yes, he did. 

HIS HONOUR:   He argued the matter quite helpfully, if I might say so.

MR SWAN:   It is my submission, your Honour, that the order in the case stated deals with that – well, perhaps that is not correct, but the answer to question (f) in the case stated is the Commonwealth should pay the costs of the petitioner and the first respondent.  That is an order that is titled in both of the actions, both Sue and Sharples.

HIS HONOUR:   It is certainly the order that I would make, unless somebody – unless the Commonwealth can persuade me to the contrary.  Perhaps I should hear – I mean, it does not directly affect you, Mr Swan, does it?

MR SWAN:   It does not.

HIS HONOUR:   I am grateful for your assistance, but I do not think it affects you.  What is the Commonwealth’s attitude?

MR BELCHER:   I do not seek to persuade you otherwise, your Honour.  The Commonwealth does not oppose paying the petitioner’s costs.  My understanding is in accord with that of Mr Swan, your Honour, that is that the only outstanding costs are those reserved costs from 1 April, the costs of the petition and the costs of today.

HIS HONOUR:   All right, thank you.  I think Mr Swan is right in the sense that I do not think I need make any orders to dispose of your petition other than perhaps – I do not know whether dismissal is appropriate, is it?  I do not need to make any orders on it.  Is dismissal appropriate?

MR SWAN:   With respect, your Honour, it is the only appropriate one I can think of.  The effect of Mr Sharples’ petition is effectively spent by the orders in Sue v Hill.

HIS HONOUR:   Perhaps if I make it clear – perhaps if I dismiss Mr Sharples’ petition, making it clear that I do so because all of the relief that should be granted in respect of it, apart from costs, has already been granted in the proceedings on the other petition.  I will make that clear.

I would order that the Australian Electoral Commission and the Attorney-General for the Commonwealth bear their own costs of the proceedings and that the Commonwealth should pay the costs of the petitioner, Mr Sharples, of today’s proceedings and of previous occasions on which costs were reserved.

Now, is there any further order you would seek, Mr Sharples?

MR SHARPLES:   No, your Honour, that would be satisfactory to myself.

HIS HONOUR:   Is there anything further, Mr Swan?

MR SWAN:   No, thank you, your Honour.

MR BELCHER:   Nothing further, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Adjourn the Court of Disputed Returns

AT 11.38 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED