22 Jan 2021
The leave applications were dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any decision or subject matter amenable to judicial review, the statutory election petition procedure is the proper remedy, the applicant lacked standing in relation to some respondents and the applications were substantially time‑barred with no adequate explanation and had no realistic prospect of success.
23 Sept 2020
Applicant's challenge to the Returning Officer's decision was properly characterised as questioning an 'election' within s49 of the DCO because nomination is part of the election process; consistent authority establishes that such challenges must be pursued by election petition and not by judicial review; election petition provides an adequate remedy and s49 is not unconstitutional for rendering judicial review unavailable; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.
30 Nov 2016
The petitioner failed to prove, on the required objective and sufficiently demanding standard, that the respondent's banners and leaflet, singly or in combination, implicitly or inferentially published the alleged materially false or misleading statements; therefore the petition challenging the election on the ground of illegal conduct under s26(2) was dismissed and the respondent was declared duly elected.
12 Jan 1995
The denial to a registered elector of his right to vote, where that elector would have voted for the petitioner and thereby prevented the declared winner from having more votes, is a material irregularity that renders the declared winner not duly elected; the court's power is limited to certifying that result and reporting, and it cannot substitute another person or invoke the drawing of lots where equality was not found at the time of counting; the legal consequence is vacancy under s42(1) and administrative authorities must address filling the vacancy.
9 Sept 1994
Majority held that challenges to a returning officer's decision to invalidate nomination papers constitute complaints about a "material irregularity relating to [an] election" and, once the election process has begun, such challenges fall within the exclusive election‑petition procedure under s.30(2) and s.31; Reg.9(7) is intra vires and reinforces finality; accordingly the Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed that judicial review is generally not the proper pre‑election remedy (although one judge stated judicial review may be available in exceptional cases but refused relief on discretio…
6 May 1982
Because s.33(1) expressly requires an election petition to be signed by the petitioner or each petitioner, a petition signed only by the petitioners' solicitors was not properly presented and is incompetent and must be struck out.