Webster v Deahm - [1993] HCATrans 204

~ --~~'~

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SITTING AS THE COURT OF

DISPUTED RETURNS

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S71 of 1993
B e t w e e n -
ALASDAIR PAINE WEBSTER

Petitioner

and
MAGGIE DEAHM (also known as
MARGARET JOAN DEAHM)

First Respondent

and
BRIAN COX, THE ELECTORAL
COMMISSIONER

Second Respondent

Webster

26/7/93

For Directions

GAUDRON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON MONDAY, 26 JULY 1993, AT 2.01 PM

(Continued from 20/7/93)

MR J. THERRY-WARD:

May it please Your Honour, in this

matter I appear for the petitioner. (instructed by
Brien Cornwell)

MR J. McCARTHY, QC: If it please Your Honour, I appear for

the first respondent. (instructed by McClellands)

MR J. SACKAR, QC: If the Court pleases, I now appear for

the Electoral Commission. (instructed by the
Australian Government Solicitor)

HER HONOUR:	Thank you.
MR THERRY-WARD:	Your Honour, just before my learned friend

commences, can I just indicate that this matter
will not now be proceeding in respect of a claim to
dispute the general election; it will only be
proceeding in respect of the seat of Macquarie and
the other matter is that I had prepared some
submissions in writing; we tried to get them to
Your Honour between 1.00pm and 2.00pm; we were

unsuccessful. Can I hand those up to Your Honour
now please?

HER HONOUR:

Yes.

Thank you.

MR THERRY-WARD:

My learned friend, Mr McCarthy, does have a

copy of them.

HER HONOUR:	And Mr Sackar as well?
MR THERRY-WARD:	No, he has not.

HER HONOUR: Before we go to these, shall I go then -

Mr Sackar, there was, I think, a notice of motion
from the Electoral Commissioner with respect to
that.

MR SACKAR:

Yes.

HER HONOUR: Well, the appropriate course would be to make

some order on that motion, I think, would there
not?

MR SACKAR: Yes, there is one from Mr McCarthy as well.

MR McCARTHY:

There are two notices of motion before

Your Honour in substantially similar terms.

HER HONOUR: Yes, thank you. Well, what order should be

made with respect to what has just been said? It
may be the easiest way of dealing with that issue.

MR McCARTHY:

Your Honour, if Your Honour went to my

friend's petition in the matter, the relevant
paragraphs would be found at page 16 paragraph (c),
and prayers, on page 17, prayer No 4 and on page 18

Webster

26/7/93

prayer No 6 and page 18 prayer No 10, that at the
petitioner's motion, there be no further
proceedings had in relation to those parts of the
petition. That would be my proposal, Your Honour,
but it may be, since it is my learned friend's
petition, he - - -

HER HONOUR:	Yes.
MR McCARTHY:	I may have missed one, Your Honour, on page 18, prayer No 8.
HER HONOUR:	Yes, thank you.
MR THERRY-WARD:	Yes, Your Honour, I agree that the prayers

No 4, 6, 8 and…

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 Webster v Deahm

Details

AGLC: Webster v Deahm [1993] HCATrans 204
Case: [1993] HCATrans 204
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this proceeding were Alasdair Paine Webster (the petitioner) and Maggie Deahm (the first respondent), with the Electoral Commission also represented. The dispute concerned a petition challenging the validity of an election. Initially, the challenge related to the general election, but it was subsequently narrowed to focus solely on the seat of Macquarie.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was to determine the appropriate orders to be made regarding specific parts of the petitioner's election petition. This involved deciding whether to permit the withdrawal of certain claims and to make orders preventing further proceedings in relation to those withdrawn claims, as well as a claim concerning the general election.

The Court, in agreement with counsel for the petitioner and the first respondent, ordered that there be no further proceedings in relation to specific prayers (numbered 4, 6, 8, and 10) of the petition. Additionally, the Court ordered that no further proceedings be taken concerning paragraph (c) of page 16 of the petition, insofar as it referred to the general election. The Court also noted that an affidavit dated 23 July 1993, sworn by Lynne Elizabeth Glasson, would be relied upon and taken as read.

Orders