A bid to overturn Sutherland Madeiros' election as Mayor of Hamilton was yesterday thrown out by Chief Justice Richard Ground.

Sonia Grant had brought the case against Mr. Madeiros after claiming election laws were wrongly interpreted when she lost to him by 161 votes to 124 in the election on October 26 last year.

Rejecting her bid at Supreme Court yesterday, Mr. Justice Ground ordered Miss Grant to pay costs to the Mayor as well as Corporation of Hamilton secretary Kelly Miller and returning officer John Cooper, both of whom were also cleared of wrong-doing yesterday.

In his judgment, Mr. Justice Ground described Miss Grant's petition as a "lengthy and confused document".

After the hearing, Mr. Madeiros said he hoped he would regain the support from Corporation members who called for him to resign when the allegations came to light late last year.

"I'm happy with the outcome of a petition which should never have been served in the first place," he said. "I'm looking forward to handling the city's business. Hopefully, I will have the support of the rest of the Corporation to do our business."

Alan Dunch, lawyer for Mr. Madeiros and Mr. Cooper, had told the court his clients had been "dragged through the mud" by the affair.

Miss Grant initially said Mr. Madeiros had been involved in election interference, but the case against him was dropped at the beginning of the four-and-a-half-day trial.

Allegations that Ms Miller and Mr. Cooper had deliberately acted wrongly were also dropped at that stage.

Mr. Justice Ground's 15-page judgment stated: "The petition is a lengthy and confused document. It appears that it was pleaded by the petitioner herself (Miss Grant), who is a lawyer.

It continued: "The original petition contained a raft of serious allegations of undue influence, fraudulent contrivance and corrupt and illegal practices.

"These were all summarily dropped at the outset of the case, and rightly so, for there was nothing in the evidence to support them, and they should never have been pleaded in the first place.

"Other allegations were abandoned as the case proceeded."

Miss Grant had claimed Ms Miller affected the election result by failing to announce she would allow companies and other organisations to change the nominees allowed to vote on their behalf.

However, Mr. Justice Ground argued Ms Miller had not behaved irregularly.

Miss Grant had also alleged the secrecy of the ballot had been infringed because Mr. Cooper had numbered ballot papers incorrectly. On this point, Mr. Justice Ground said if there was an irregularity, it did not affect the outcome of the election.

He told the court aspects of the election had attracted criticism "not wholly without justification" and questioned communication within the Corporation on the subject of nominees. But his judgment concluded: "I ... declare that Mr. Madeiros was validly elected as Mayor of the City of Hamilton, and dismiss the petition."

Mr. Dunch told the court there would be lasting repercussions for both his clients.

"Mr. Madeiros may well feel that he's been vindicated," said Mr. Dunch, "but there will be people outside this court room who will still have that impression that he may have done something wrong.

"He will never, never be able to get over that."

Appealing for Miss Grant to pay costs, he added: "There's no getting around the fact that Mr. Madeiros and Mr. Cooper have both been in the public eye and limelight since this petition was filed, charged with what the public perceive to be fraud and corruption.

"They are scandalous allegations in every sense of the word.

"The seriousness with which this court ought to view the conduct of the petitioner can be made plain by an order that requires her to pay the costs of these proceedings, which ought never to have been brought."

After the hearing, Mr. Cooper said: "I'm pleased that the election stands and that my interpretation has been agreed by the court." Ms Miller declined to comment.

Delroy Duncan, lawyer for Miss Grant, argued that the Corporation had learned some lessons as a result of the case.

"Miss Grant is disappointed with the decision of the court but accepts the ruling," he said.

"She believes it was important to launch the proceedings and challenge the election result because a number of unfortunate procedures in the election were highlighted in the ruling.

"Miss Grant hopes these procedures will be corrected and not repeated in future elections."

Miss Grant declined to comment. Two aldermen and four councillors on the Corporation had called for Mr. Madeiros' resignation after Miss Grant filed her petition. They claimed the rules for the election were changed at his instigation, giving him an unfair advantage over Miss Grant.