Finch & Anor v Richardson

The court found that the illegal practices committed by the claimants occurred through inadvertence and not from any want of good faith. Ignorance of the law, even by experienced professionals, may constitute inadvertence within the meaning of the Act. Relief from statutory consequences was therefore granted.

Parties: Claimant: Sir Robert Finch; Claimant: Michael Henderson-Begg; Defendant: Matthew Richardson
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 12 December 2008
Procedural Posture: Election Petition / Judgment
Outcome: Relief granted from all statutory consequences of illegal practices.
Legal Topics: Illegal Practices, Election Expenses, Relief From Consequences, Inadvertence, Good Faith

Election Law Illegal Practices Election Expenses Relief From Consequences Inadvertence Good Faith

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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5

Parties

Sir Robert Finch

Claimant

Michael Henderson-Begg

Claimant

Matthew Richardson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Election Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the claimants' failure to declare certain election expenses constituted illegal practices under the Representation of the People Act 1983
2 Whether ignorance of the law can constitute inadvertence for purposes of relief under ss.86 and 167 of the Act
3 Whether the claimants acted in good faith and are entitled to relief from statutory consequences

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Relief granted from all statutory consequences of illegal practices.

Orders

Claimants relieved from all consequences of election expenses incurred in excess of statutory limit and errors/false statements in returns and declarations.
No order as to costs.