header-logo header-logo

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

Elections

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll