Ali v Bashir & Anor [2012] EWHC 3007 (QB) (30 October 2012)

Ali v Bashir & Anor [2012] EWHC 3007 (QB) (30 October 2012)

The petition, though not in the precise form set out in the Schedule to the Election Petition Rules 1960, complied with the substantive requirements of Rule 4(1) by conveying the essential information required. The departures from the prescribed form caused no prejudice to the respondents, and a more exacting requirement would be incompatible with Convention rights. Therefore, the application to strike out the petition was dismissed.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3007 (QB)
Parties
Petitioner: Mohammed Ali; 1st Respondent: Mohammed Bashir; 2nd Respondent: Ray Morgan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Application to Strike Out Petition Before Divisional Court
Outcome
Application to strike out dismissed; directions given for further conduct of the petition.
Legal Topics
Election Petitions, Procedural Compliance, Representation of the People Act 1983, Election Petition Rules 1960, Human Rights Act 1998
Election Law Administrative Law Election Petitions Procedural Compliance Representation of the People Act 1983 Election Petition Rules 1960 Human Rights Act 1998

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Ali

Petitioner

Mohammed Bashir

1st Respondent

Ray Morgan

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition / Application to Strike Out Petition Before Divisional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the election petition should be struck out for failure to comply with Rule 4 of the Election Petition Rules 1960
  2. 2 Whether the petition sufficiently stated the result of the election and the grounds for relief
  3. 3 Whether substantive compliance with procedural rules is sufficient

Ratio Decidendi

The petition, though not in the precise form set out in the Schedule to the Election Petition Rules 1960, complied with the substantive requirements of Rule 4(1) by conveying the essential information required. The departures from the prescribed form caused no prejudice to the respondents, and a more exacting requirement would be incompatible with Convention rights. Therefore, the application to strike out the petition was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out dismissed; directions given for further conduct of the petition.

Orders

  • Scrutiny of ballots and documents to take place in Woking.
  • 1st Respondent to pay costs of Petitioner and Returning Officer, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.