The applicant urged that s 364 of the Act gives me power to make the orders he seeks. That section provides that: "The Court shall be guided by the substantial merits and good conscience of each case without regard to legal forms or technicalities, or whether the evidence before it is in accordance with the law of evidence or not."

[2]

Broad as that provision may be, it does not confer a jurisdiction on the Court which it does not otherwise have under the Act. Nor does it dispense with the requirements of the Act. It merely requires that the Court should not be unduly formal or technical in the conduct of proceedings under the Act and enables it to depart from the rules of evidence.

[3]

Rudolphy v Lightfoot - [1999] HCA 61 - HCA 1999 case summary — Zoe

(1904) 1 CLR 314 at 316. 2. Unreported; Court of Disputed Returns; 28 October 1993. 3. Re Ceminchuk (unreported; Court of Disputed Returns; 28 October 1993), at 2-3. 4. (1904) 1 CLR 314 at 316. 5. (1978) 52 ALJR 359 at 360; 19 ALR 254 at 255. 6. (1988) 167 CLR 133 at 137. 7. (1993) 67 ALJR 714 at 716-717; 115 ALR 645 at 648. 8. (1993) 67 ALJR 818 at 819; 116 ALR 407 at 408-409.

[4]

It follows that the present petition is incompetent and should be dismissed. The question posed by the Case Stated should be answered accordingly. The question of costs of the Case Stated should be for the Justice disposing of the matter.