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

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Heavyweight patent litigator will bolster Carpmaels Ransford’s rapidly growing Litigation team as firm marks its 250th anniversary

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll