header-logo header-logo

Elections

26 February 2010
Issue: 7406 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Conservative and Unionist Party v Election Commissioner [2010] EWHC 285 (Admin), [2010] All ER (D) 214 (Feb)

The extent to which third party orders for the costs of an election petition could be made were limited to the circumstances set out in s 156 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.

If the election court was intended to have the power to order non-parties to pay costs, it would be odd if that power could not be exercised because the procedural device—CPR 48.2(1)—used in the High Court was inappropriate for the election court. CPR 48.2(1) was a mechanism to enable non-parties to be provided with any documents relevant to any application for costs made against them, and, further, to make representations to the court.

The procedural device was unnecessary for s 156 purposes; s 156 had its own in-built procedure for enabling non-parties to participate in applications for costs against them. Furthermore, the provisions of any other enactment which s 51 of the 1981 Act was expressly qualified by included ss 154 and 156. Prima facie, their

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll