Erlam & Ors v Rahman & Anor [2014] EWHC 2766 (QB) (07 August 2014)

Erlam & Ors v Rahman & Anor [2014] EWHC 2766 (QB) (07 August 2014)

The petition was not a nullity in whole or in part as it stated the required grounds and some facts, even if lacking sufficient particularity. The court has power to order further particulars to be provided to comply with Rule 4(1)(d). The application to strike out was dismissed, and the Petitioners were ordered to provide further particulars by a specified date. The application to adjourn the PCO was refused and the PCO application dismissed due to deliberate failure to provide evidence of means and because the PCO regime is inapt for election petitions.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2766 (QB)
Parties
Petitioner: Andrew Erlam; Petitioner: Debbie Simone; Petitioner: Azmal Hussein; Petitioner: Angela Moffat; First Respondent: Mohammed Lutfur Rahman; Second Respondent: John S. Williams
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out, Further Particulars, Protective Costs Order)
Outcome
Applications dismissed in part, further particulars ordered
Legal Topics
Election Petitions, Particulars of Claim, Protective Costs Orders, Strike Out Applications
Election Law Civil Procedure Election Petitions Particulars of Claim Protective Costs Orders Strike Out Applications

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Erlam

Petitioner

Debbie Simone

Petitioner

Azmal Hussein

Petitioner

Angela Moffat

Petitioner

Mohammed Lutfur Rahman

First Respondent

John S. Williams

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out, Further Particulars, Protective Costs Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petition should be struck out for want of particularity under Rule 4(1)(d) of the Election Petition Rules 1960
  2. 2 Whether the petition is a nullity in whole or in part for lack of particulars
  3. 3 Whether further particulars can be ordered after the 21-day time limit

Ratio Decidendi

The petition was not a nullity in whole or in part as it stated the required grounds and some facts, even if lacking sufficient particularity. The court has power to order further particulars to be provided to comply with Rule 4(1)(d). The application to strike out was dismissed, and the Petitioners were ordered to provide further particulars by a specified date. The application to adjourn the PCO was refused and the PCO application dismissed due to deliberate failure to provide evidence of means and because the PCO regime is inapt for election petitions.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed in part, further particulars ordered

Orders

  • First Respondent's application to dismiss the petition is dismissed.
  • Petitioners are ordered to file and serve further particulars of the allegations by 4pm on 18 August 2014.