Sue v Hill
Case
•
[1999] HCA 30
•23 June 1999
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30
[1999] HCA 30
23 June 1999
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *Sue v Hill* and *Sharples v Hill* involved petitions challenging the qualifications of Mrs Heather Hill to be chosen or to sit as a Senator for Queensland following the 1998 general election. The petitioners contended that Mrs Hill was constitutionally disqualified under section 44(i) of the Constitution. The proceedings were brought before the High Court in its original jurisdiction as the Court of Disputed Returns, pursuant to cases stated under the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth).
The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether section 354 of the *Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918* (Cth) validly conferred jurisdiction upon the Court of Disputed Returns to determine the issues raised in the petitions. Subsidiary questions concerned whether Mrs Hill was a subject or citizen of a foreign power at the time of her nomination, whether she was duly elected, and if not, whether the election should be declared void or a recount ordered. The Court was also required to consider the constitutional validity of the jurisdiction conferred by Division 1 of Part XXII of the *Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918* (Cth) and whether it conferred non-judicial power, as well as whether the Parliament had "otherwise provided" for the constitutional qualifications of Senators.
The Court, in answering the questions reserved in the stated cases, determined that section 354 of the *Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918* (Cth) did not validly confer jurisdiction upon the Court of Disputed Returns to hear and determine the petitions. Consequently, the Court found it unnecessary and inappropriate to answer the other questions concerning Mrs Hill's eligibility or the validity of the election. The Court concluded that the resolution of Mrs Hill's qualifications was a matter reserved by the Constitution to the Senate. The Commonwealth was ordered to pay the costs of the petitioner and the first respondent, while the second respondent was to bear its own costs.
The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether section 354 of the *Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918* (Cth) validly conferred jurisdiction upon the Court of Disputed Returns to determine the issues raised in the petitions. Subsidiary questions concerned whether Mrs Hill was a subject or citizen of a foreign power at the time of her nomination, whether she was duly elected, and if not, whether the election should be declared void or a recount ordered. The Court was also required to consider the constitutional validity of the jurisdiction conferred by Division 1 of Part XXII of the *Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918* (Cth) and whether it conferred non-judicial power, as well as whether the Parliament had "otherwise provided" for the constitutional qualifications of Senators.
The Court, in answering the questions reserved in the stated cases, determined that section 354 of the *Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918* (Cth) did not validly confer jurisdiction upon the Court of Disputed Returns to hear and determine the petitions. Consequently, the Court found it unnecessary and inappropriate to answer the other questions concerning Mrs Hill's eligibility or the validity of the election. The Court concluded that the resolution of Mrs Hill's qualifications was a matter reserved by the Constitution to the Senate. The Commonwealth was ordered to pay the costs of the petitioner and the first respondent, while the second respondent was to bear its own costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Constitutional Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Judicial Review
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
-
Costs
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30
Most Recent Citation
Lee v Quest Investments Limited [2017] VCC 926
Cases Citing This Decision
500
Cases Cited
59
Statutory Material Cited
5
Re Webster
[1975] HCA 22
McGinty v Western Australia
[1996] HCA 48
Smith v Oldham
[1912] HCA 61
Cited Sections