Sue v Hill; Sharples v Hill

199 CLR 462
[1999] HCA 30

---

Sue; Sharples v
Hill

Court:

Judges: Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne
Gaudron
McHugh
Kirby
Callinan JJ

Judgment date: 23 June 1999

---

Order

1. Answer the questions reserved in each stated case as follows:

(a)

Does s354 of the Act validly confer upon the Court of Disputed Returns jurisdiction to determine the issues raised in the Petition?

Answer: Yes

(b)

Was the first respondent at the date of her nomination a subject or citizen of a foreign power within the meaning of s44(i) of the Constitution?

Answer: Yes

(c)

Was the first respondent duly elected at the Election?

Answer: No

2.

(d) If no to (c), was the Election void absolutely?

Answer: No

(e)

If no to (d), should the second respondent conduct a recount of the ballot papers cast for the Election for the purpose of determining the candidate entitled to be declared elected to the place for which the first respondent was returned?

Answer: Inappropriate to answer.

(f)

Save for those otherwise dealt with by order, who should pay the costs of the Stated Case and of the hearing of the Stated Case before the Full High Court?

Answer: The Commonwealth should pay the costs of the petitioner and the first respondent. The second respondent should bear its own costs.