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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll