The Federal Court held that a tick on a referendum ballot paper clearly indicates a voter's intention to vote 'yes' and should be counted as formal, while a cross is inherently ambiguous (could mean 'yes', 'no', or rejection of the question) and should be counted as informal. The Court applied the test from Kane v McClelland that a voter's intention must be unmistakeable and not left to inference or conjecture.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.