Parkinson v Lewis & Ors

Parkinson v Lewis & Ors

The admitted failure by the first three respondents to comply with Rule 6 of the 2006 Rules, namely having proposers and seconders not registered in the relevant ward, rendered their nomination papers defective and invalidated their election. Section 48 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 does not save the election in these circumstances, as it applies only to breaches by officials, not candidates. The court has no power to declare the petitioner duly elected; the only remedy is to void the election and order a rerun.

Parties
Petitioner: Charles John Parkinson; Respondent: Gina Lewis; Respondent: Graham Cawley; Respondent: Margaret Dolphin; Respondent: Steve Robinson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Judgment
Outcome
Petition allowed; election for Over ward declared void.
Legal Topics
Local Government Elections, Nomination Paper Defects, Statutory Interpretation, Costs
Election Law Administrative Law Local Government Elections Nomination Paper Defects Statutory Interpretation Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles John Parkinson

Petitioner

Gina Lewis

Respondent

Graham Cawley

Respondent

Margaret Dolphin

Respondent

Steve Robinson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to comply with Rule 6 of the Local Election (Parishes and Communities) England and Wales Rules 2006 invalidates the election of councillors.
  2. 2 Whether section 48 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 saves the election despite defective nomination papers.
  3. 3 Whether the court has power to declare the petitioner duly elected.

Ratio Decidendi

The admitted failure by the first three respondents to comply with Rule 6 of the 2006 Rules, namely having proposers and seconders not registered in the relevant ward, rendered their nomination papers defective and invalidated their election. Section 48 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 does not save the election in these circumstances, as it applies only to breaches by officials, not candidates. The court has no power to declare the petitioner duly elected; the only remedy is to void the election and order a rerun.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed; election for Over ward declared void.

Orders

  • Election for Over ward to be rerun.
  • Petitioner awarded 75% of his costs: 25% payable by the returning officer, 50% by the first and second respondents; costs to be several, not joint and several.