Legal Research
Cases
Snowdon v Dondas

Snowdon v Dondas

Case [1996] HCA 27 10 October 1996

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BRENNAN CJ, DAWSON, TOOHEY, GAUDRON AND GUMMOW JJ

WARREN SNOWDON v. NICHOLAS MANUEL DONDAS and THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION

10 October 1996

Elections—House of Representatives—Division of the Northern Territory—Electoral Districts—Exclusion of provisional votes from scrutiny—Electoral Rolls—Enrolment as a qualification to vote—Voters must be enrolled on the Roll of the District in which they live. Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth), ss 4(1), 4(5), 48(2A), 56, 79, 81, 82, 84, 92(2), 93, 99, 101, 105, 114, 118, 235, 266(1), 285(1), 361(1), Sched 3. Constitution ss 41, 75(v), 122.

Hearing

CANBERRA, 3 September 1996
#DATE 10:10:1996
#ADD 10:10:1996

Counsel for the Plaintiffs: J.A. McCarthy, QC
J. Hatzistergos

Solicitors for the Plaintiffs: McClellands

Counsel for the First Respondent: J.E. Reeves

Solicitors for the First Respondent: James Noonan

Counsel for the Second Respondent: S.C. Kenny

Solicitors for the Second Respondent: Australian Government
Solicitor

Orders

1. Answer the question reserved as follows:
(1) No.
(2) Does not fall to be answered.
2. The petitioner pay the respondents' costs of the question reserved.

Decision

The background
BRENNAN CJ, DAWSON, TOOHEY, GAUDRON AND GUMMOW JJ On 29 January 1996 writs were issued for the election of 148 members of the House of Representatives.

2. One of the writs provided for the election of a member for the Division of the Northern Territory. In accordance with the writ, the electoral roll was to close on 5 February, nominations were to close on 9 February, the election was to take place on 2 March and the writ was made returnable on or before 8 May.

3. The petitioner, Mr Snowdon, and the first respondent, Mr Dondas, were two of the five candidates for election in the Division. The election was held and, after the distribution of preferences, Mr Dondas had an absolute majority of 627 votes over Mr Snowdon. Accordingly, Mr Dondas was declared the duly elected member of the House of Representatives for the Division of the Northern Territory.

4. On 8 May 1996 Mr Snowdon filed in the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, a petition claiming that a number of provisional votes were improperly excluded from the scrutiny of votes in the Division and seeking a declaration that Mr Dondas was not duly elected. The petition further seeks a declaration that the candidate with the greatest number of votes, following the inclusion of the votes said to have been improperly excluded, be declared the successful candidate.

5. The matter comes before the Full Court in the form of a question reserved for its consideration. The question is: "Having regard to the facts and matters stated in the Case Stated(1), in particular paragraphs 43, 44, 45 and 47 -
(1) Where, at the time of the election, the name of an elector who cast one of the 1594 provisional votes referred to in paragraph 45: (a) was not on a Roll for a District of the Division where the elector resides; and (b) had previously been on a Roll for a District…

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 Snowdon v Dondas

Details

AGLC: Snowdon v Dondas [1996] HCA 27
Case: [1996] HCA 27
Decision Date: 10 October 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Snowdon v Dondas concerned a dispute between the appellant, Mr. Snowdon, and the respondent, Mr. Dondas, regarding the ownership of certain land. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the respondent had acquired title to the land by adverse possession, and if so, whether the appellant's claim to the land was defeated by the respondent's adverse possession. The Court also considered the nature of possession required to establish a claim of adverse possession under the relevant legislation.

The High Court held that the respondent had not established adverse possession of the land. The Court reasoned that the respondent's use of the land was not of a character that evinced an intention to possess the land to the exclusion of all others, including the true owner. The principles applied focused on the requirement for factual possession and the necessary intention to possess, which must be demonstrated by clear and unequivocal acts. The Court found that the respondent's actions were more consistent with a permissive use of the land rather than an assertion of exclusive ownership.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and ordered that the judgment of the court below be set aside. The Court found in favour of the appellant, Mr. Snowdon.

Orders