Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Elections - From: 1995 To: 1995

This page lists 6 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.

 
Absalom v Gillett [1995] 2 All ER 661; [1995] 1 WLR 128
1995
QBD
Laws and Forbes JJ
Elections
An application was made under rule 13 to strike out a local government election petition for non-compliance with s.136(3) and rule 6: the petitioners there had served the notice on the returning officer but had not served the successful candidates. The question arose as to whether a candidate should be joined to an application for an election petition. Held: A party whose very status as a democratic representative is sought to be impugned by litigation before the court should have the right to be heard. It is an affront to justice that the successful candidates have no right to be heard on this petition. Successful candidates whose election is impugned by a petition such as this should be made respondents. "There is, so far as we are aware, no material difference between the statutory provisions and rules in play in these authorities and those with which we are here concerned." and "It is quite plain that the whole of the case law to date is one way, and supports the proposition that a successful candidate whose election is sought to be impugned must be made a respondent, and that if he is not the petition cannot go forward. . . . If a petition is to be brought, it must be so served [ie upon the successful candidate]. The requirement is mandatory . . . It follows that this petition is incompetent, and must be struck out. We reach this conclusion with very considerable regret. In the course of argument we made no secret of our view that, if the respondent's application was good, an injustice would be perpetrated. We remain of that view. This petition has at least arguable merits …. We greatly doubt whether the public interest in the speedy determination of election disputes - an interest which we readily acknowledge - requires so draconian a regime as regards time for service as that created by rule 19 of the Election Petition Rules 1960. We should have thought there should be scope for some limited judicial discretion to extend time, though no doubt it would be sparingly exercised, and only if very good cause were shown. But that is not the present position. Given the present state of the law, the application to strike out must succeed."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Sanders and Another v Chichester and Another Gazette, 18 January 1995; Times, 02 December 1994; Independent, 16 November 1994
18 Jan 1995
QBD

Elections
A confusing description of a candidate in an election had to be allowed. Provided that he was sufficiently identified, a candidate was free to choose his name.

 
Gallie v Boundary Commission for Scotland Times, 03 February 1995
3 Feb 1995
OHCS

Scotland, Elections
Boundary Commissioner entitled to follow partly completed electoral divisions.

 
Houston and Another v British Broadcasting Corporation Times, 09 May 1995
9 May 1995
IHCS

Elections, Scotland, Media
The BBC's appeal against an interdict against program before election was not urgent enough to justify immediate hearing.

 
Regina v Corporation of the City of London and Another Times, 20 October 1995
20 Oct 1995
CA

Elections
An election court was required by fairness to give reasons for not ratifying an election.

 
Regina v Commissioner of Election Court ex parte Loveridge [1995] EWHC Admin 5
23 Nov 1995
Admn
Latham J
Elections, Media
The applicant had been found in contravention of the law requiring him not to take part in a broadcast within a short period before the election. He had given the interview some days before, and did not know when, or give thought to when, it might be broadcast. He claimed the broadcast had been made without his consent. The commissioner concluded that he had clearly consented when giving the interview, and that the intention was to assist his prospects at the election. That judgment was clearly within the realms of the reasonable, and should not be set aside.
Representation of the People Act 1983 93 (1)(b)
[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.