//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[1995] QSC 298
Supreme Court of Queensland
1995-12-08
Ambrose J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Introduction and statement of Bases of Dispute as contained in Grounds
Principles upon which powers exercised under s.136 of the Electoral Act 1992 4
(1) Multiple voting or alternatively personation (21 votes). (Petition Grounds 5(a) and (b)) 9
(2) Personation (39 votes). (Petition Ground 5(b)). 19
(3) Declaration votes not counted (15 votes). (Petition Ground 5(c)). 25
(4) The denial of a vote to 22 Australian Defence Force personnel serving overseas
(5) Persons denied the opportunity to cast a declaration vote by error of the
first respondent (8 votes). (Petition Ground 5(e)). 79
(6) Ballot papers counted in favour of the second respondent which should have
been excluded as informal. (Petition Ground 5(f)). 83
(7) Ballot papers which should have been counted for the petitioner which were
the Electoral Act 1992 78
Tanti
Davies
In Bridge v. Bowen [1916] HCA 38; (1916) 21 CLR 582, Griffiths CJ at p.586 referred to the unwritten law setting forth the grounds upon which courts will interfere with elections which he said was sometimes called "the common law of elections". He considered what the legal consequence would be of an omission in an electoral statute to deal specifically with a particular event relating to the election and said at p.587:
Reference was made to authority to support the contention that as a matter of statutory construction the words "real place of living" used in s.105(3) of the Electoral Act 1992 can be defined by direct reference to the Commonwealth legislation and the repealed Elections Act 1983. Attention was drawn to observations in Lennon v. Gibson & Howes Ltd (1919) 26 CLR 285 at 287 and [1919] UKPCHCA 2; (1919) AC 709 at 711. Connolly J cited such authority with approval in R. v. Caldwell and Kinross [1986] 2 Qd R 397 at 399. Reference was also made to the observation of Fullagar J in Gale v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1960] HCA 18; (1960) 102 CLR 1 at p.12 that "nice distinctions ought not be drawn between different forms of words in statutes in pari materia". Reference was also made to the observations of Lockhart J in Riordan v. Parole Board of the Australian Capital Territory [1928] ArgusLawRp 86; (1981) 34 ALR 322 at 329:
I recommend that urgent consideration be given to removing ambiguity and any administrative problems in the way of the Commission strictly complying with what appear to be the mandatory requirements of s.110(3), to which I have referred, prior to the next election. I am particularly concerned at the prospect of challenges being mounted on the ground that failure to comply strictly with s.110(3) in the course of an election involves a departure from subsisting electoral law and thus renders the election void should the registration procedure for "special postal voters" adopted by the Commission be continued without clear statutory authority. For a discussion of the considerations which might then arise, I refer to Victoria v. The Commonwealth and Connors [1975] HCA 39; (1975) 134 CLR 81 at pp.161-162 and 178-189.
(1916) 21 CLR 582
(1994) 53 FCR 156
(1919) 26 CLR 285
(1960) 102 CLR 1
(1981) 34 ALR 322
(1975) 134 CLR 81