Erlam & Ors v Rahman & Anor

Erlam & Ors v Rahman & Anor

The petition is not a nullity in whole or in part as it states the required grounds and sets out facts in general terms. The deficiency in particularity can be remedied by ordering further particulars. There is no basis to strike out the petition. The application for a protective costs order is dismissed due to deliberate failure to provide evidence of means and no justification for adjournment.

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
First Respondent's application to dismiss the petition dismissed; Petitioners ordered to provide further particulars; Petitioners' application for adjournment and for a protective costs order dismissed.
Legal Topics
Election Petitions, Particulars of Pleadings, Protective Costs Orders, Striking Out Applications
Election Law Civil Procedure Election Petitions Particulars of Pleadings Protective Costs Orders Striking 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 3 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 sufficient particularity under Rule 4(1)(d) of the Election Petition Rules 1960
  2. 2 Whether the court should order further particulars of the petition
  3. 3 Whether the petitioners' application for a protective costs order (PCO) should be adjourned or granted

Ratio Decidendi

The petition is not a nullity in whole or in part as it states the required grounds and sets out facts in general terms. The deficiency in particularity can be remedied by ordering further particulars. There is no basis to strike out the petition. The application for a protective costs order is dismissed due to deliberate failure to provide evidence of means and no justification for adjournment.

Court Disposition

First Respondent's application to dismiss the petition dismissed; Petitioners ordered to provide further particulars; Petitioners' application for adjournment and for a protective costs order dismissed.

Orders

  • Petitioners to file and serve further particulars of the allegations in the petition by 4pm on 18 August 2014.
  • Petitioners' application for adjournment of the PCO application dismissed.