header-logo header-logo

02 November 2012
Issue: 7536 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

European Union

R (on the application of Preston) v Lord President of the Council [2012] EWCA Civ 1378, [2012] All ER (D) 249 (Oct)

The 15 year rule in s 1(3)(c) of the Representation of the People Act 1985, which rendered ineligible to vote anyone who had been resident outside the UK for more than 15 years, was not in terms an express restriction on free movement. Nor was it in substance a disguised or inherent restriction on free movement. The Divisional Court had been correct to consider the potential effect of the 15 year rule on free movement in practice. Its conclusion that any interference with the right of free movement, in such cases, was “too indirect and uncertain” to require justification was not contradicted or undermined by the claimant’s evidence. It did not follow that every disadvantage of non-residence in the UK was a restriction on or deterrent to free movement. Further, as disenfranchisement was only triggered after the passing of 15 years’ residence overseas, a long term view had to be taken when considering whether the

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll