Parkinson v Lewis & Ors [2016] EWHC 725 (QB) (18 March 2016)

Parkinson v Lewis & Ors [2016] EWHC 725 (QB) (18 March 2016)

The election for the Over ward is void because the first three respondents' nomination papers did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 6 of the 2006 Rules, as their proposers and/or seconders were not electors for the relevant ward. The saving provision in section 48 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 does not apply to defects caused by candidates, only to officials. The court has no power to declare the petitioner elected in place of the respondents. The election must be rerun.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 725 (QB)
Parties
Petitioner: Charles John Parkinson; First Respondent: Gina Lewis; Second Respondent: Graham Cawley; Third Respondent: Margaret Dolphin; Fourth Respondent: Steve Robinson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Petition allowed in part; election declared void; no declaration that petitioner is elected; costs awarded as specified.
Legal Topics
Nomination Papers, Validity of Election, Electoral Procedure, Statutory Interpretation, Costs in Election Petitions
Election Law Administrative Law Nomination Papers Validity of Election Electoral Procedure Statutory Interpretation Costs in Election Petitions

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles John Parkinson

Petitioner

Gina Lewis

First Respondent

Graham Cawley

Second Respondent

Margaret Dolphin

Third Respondent

Steve Robinson

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the failure of candidates' nomination papers to comply with mandatory requirements of the Local Election (Parishes and Communities) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 renders their election void
  2. 2 Whether the saving provision in section 48 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 applies to defects in nomination papers caused by candidates
  3. 3 Whether the court has power to declare the petitioner duly elected in place of respondents with invalid nominations

Ratio Decidendi

The election for the Over ward is void because the first three respondents' nomination papers did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 6 of the 2006 Rules, as their proposers and/or seconders were not electors for the relevant ward. The saving provision in section 48 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 does not apply to defects caused by candidates, only to officials. The court has no power to declare the petitioner elected in place of the respondents. The election must be rerun.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed in part; election declared void; no declaration that petitioner is elected; costs awarded as specified.

Orders

  • The election for Over ward is declared void and must be rerun.
  • Petitioner awarded 75% of his costs: 25% to be paid by the returning officer, 50% by the first and second respondents, with liability several, not joint and several.