Mohammed Hussain must demonstrate to the court that if he had been allowed to stand, the election result could well have been different - and for a low-profile independent that is a very high bar.

Mr Hussain is asking the Supreme Court to declare the result in the Gungahlin electorate of Yerrabi void, which would force a new election in the electorate. He says he wanted to stand as an independent but his nomination form was wrongly rejected by the ACT Electoral Commission.

The Electoral Commission said he did not have the minimum number of 20 signatures from people on the ACT electoral roll. But Mr Hussain said the signature of his wife was wrongly rejected. The commission said she was not on the roll, but in fact she had confirmation she was on the federal roll by September 21, the day nominations closed, he said.

Mr Hussain's case is set for a directions hearing in the Supreme Court on Friday, February 10.

But expert in political law Graeme Orr, from the University of Queensland, said the law was designed to ensure elections were not overturned as a result of errors such as voters not being on the electoral roll, or disagreements over issues such as whether a polling booth closed precisely at the correct time.

Complainants must also show that the error would have made a difference to the outcome.

"It's a bit of a safety valve," Professor Orr said. "You have to show breaches of the Act by another candidate or the Electoral Commission were likely to have affected the result."

Courts did not allow speculative arguments about whether an election outcome might be different if, for example, a set of illegal pamphlets had not been distributed.

Mr Hussain would face a number of hurdles, not least having to prove that a mistake was made in the first place.

Even if he won that argument, and other aspects of his case were in order, the court then must make a judgement about the consequences. It must decide whether his candidacy was likely to have affected the election outcome.

Professor Orr said such cases were rare, but he pointed to the court overturning the Western Australia 2013 Senate election after 1375 ballot papers went missing. But in that case, there was "a hair's breadth" between a winning and losing candidate so the number of missing ballots could clearly affect the result.

Mr Hussain would be in a stronger position if he was one of the top few candidates vying for a place, or if he could control the flow of his preferences. But in the ACT, with no control over the preference flow and a history of electing major party candidates rather than independents, it was "a bit uphill", Professor Orr said.

"Even if the judge is sympathetic to his case, is a judge going to send all five MLAs back, with the discord that would have for the functioning of parliament, given this is now some months into the new term?" Professor Orr said. "Is he likely to send all five MPs back to the polls on the basis of a speculative case about a relatively unknown independent?"

Constitutional lawyer George Williams from the University of NSW echoed the comments, saying it was common sense that courts did not overturn elections easily.

"Evidence needs to be put to the court showing that, first, there had been a mistake or other wrongful action, and secondly, that that mistake could have affected the result," he said.

Convincing the court that the result could have been different was tough, and would probably take someone with an intimate understanding of the electoral system and with polling or other numerical evidence.

"Courts are understandably wary about overturning elections," Professor Williams said. ""The mere fact that a mistake has been made is not enough."