Unlike the American electoral system where recounting can go on for days and then move on to months of legal action, electoral law in this country is such that baring credible accusations of widespread fraud the results of a count should be decided within a reasonable amount of time.
The first key to this is the regulations are sprinkled with incidences of the phrase "the (Acting) Returning Officer's decision is final" at first glance this doesn't look democratic, but pretty much universally these discussions are made within clear sight of agents of the candidates, other members of staff and for the last few years accredited observers and officials are liable for criminal prosecution if it can be proven they are in breach of their duty.
Secondly the methods for dealing with "doubtful" ballot papers give a large amount of leeway for sensible interpretation of a voters intentions with a presumption to accept rather than reject marginal papers. This adjudication is one of the areas where the decision is final unlike say the 2008 Senate election in Minnesota which took 246 days to resolve due to legal action over the admissibility of ballots.
Thirdly while there is provision for one (or more) recounts for close or in doubt results, if it is the case that there is little purpose in subsequent recounts due to no significant change in the results there is a presumption they will not be repeated. Note that recounts are just as valid at the bottom end of the table as at the top if there is a possibility of a candidate being credited with enough votes to avoid loosing their deposit.
Finally in the case that after recounting there is a tie for first (and while we have a first past the post electoral system and are electing one person per seat, only first) the regulations state that one extra vote shall be allocated according to the drawing of lots or upon the flip of a coin. This has happened on at least one occasion in a local council election.