Blundell v Vardon

Blundell v Vardon
Court	High Court of Australia as the Court of Disputed Returns
Decided	1 June 1907
Citations	[1907] HCA 75, (1907) 4 CLR 1463
Court membership
Judge sitting	Barton J
Case opinions
The election of Vardon was absolutely void due to the default of electoral officers.

R v Governor of South Australia; Ex parte Vardon
Court	High Court of Australia
Full case name	The King v The Governor of the State of South Australia; Ex parte Vardon
Decided	8 August 1907
Citations	[1907] HCA 31, (1907) 4 CLR 1497
Court membership
Judges sitting	Griffith CJ, Barton, O'Connor, Isaacs & Higgins JJ
Case opinions
The Governor of a State could not be commanded by a court to do an act which he can only do with the advice of the Executive Council. The Governor of a State, in issuing writs for an election, is not an officer of the Commonwealth within the meaning of section 75 of the Constitution.

Vardon v O'Loghlin
Court	High Court of Australia
Full case name	Vardon v O'Loghlin on a reference by the Senate of the Commonwealth
Decided	8 August 1907
Citations	[1907] HCA 69, (1907) 5 CLR 201
Court membership
Judges sitting	Griffith CJ, Barton, Isaacs & Higgins JJ
Case opinions
The vacancy existing after the declaration by the Court of Disputed Returns was not a vacancy arising in the place of a senator before the expiration of his term of office within the meaning of sec. 15 of the Constitution, and, therefore, the choice or election of a senator by the State Parliament was void.

Blundell v Vardon,^[1] was the first of three decisions of the High Court of Australia concerning the 1906 election for senators for South Australia. Sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, Barton J held that the election of Anti-Socialist Party candidate Joseph Vardon as the third senator for South Australia was void due to irregularities in the way the returning officers marked some votes. The Parliament of South Australia appointed James O'Loghlin. Vardon sought to have the High Court compel the governor of South Australia to hold a supplementary election, however the High Court held in R v Governor of South Australia; Ex parte Vardon that it had no power to do so.^[2] Vardon then petitioned the Senate seeking to remove O'Loghlin and rather than decide the issue, the Senate referred the matter to the High Court. The High Court held in Vardon v O'Loghlin that O'Loghlin had been invalidly appointed and ordered a supplementary election.^[3] Vardon and O'Loghlin both contested the supplementary election, with Vardon winning with 54% of the vote.^[4]