The high court does not pass the pub test

When writing this one should take into account I only did introduction to law at university. I still remember Donoghue V Stevenson  with great fondness if only for the Judge using the book of Luke to assist in defining who is my neighbour

 The High Court in its guise as the Court of Disputed Returns has made a silly decision.
Way back  in the Sykes V Cleary decision The Court of Disputed Returns made a sensible judgement on what constitutes making reasonable steps to renounce foreign citizenship.
The Present court has now changed that but have given no reason why. I do find it strange that when new interpretations are made no reasons are given why the previous one was wrong.
See Anne Twomey  on the ruling.

Does the decision pass the pub test?

I would argue it doesn't. ironically it appears the UK is the major problem here. The Court has assumed there is no major problem between winning pre-selection and being nominated as a candidate. given what we have seen from both sides this assumption is not realised.

Secondly it appears the black letter law interpretation is selective as George Willams found out to his cost last year.
Lastly the replacement of Fiona Nash was a complete joke.  Here the next candidate on the senate list gained a government job AFTER the election. She had no idea Nash would be disqualified. Yet the court ruled this made her ineligible to be a Senator. so she needed to be prescient.

All in all the court does not come out of this looking  very good.