header-logo header-logo

07 November 2025
Issue: 8138 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 7 November 2025

Elections

Moore v Royal Mail Group Ltd and others [2025] EWCA Civ 1378

The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the Divisional Court’s refusal to dismiss an election petition. What is at issue is whether an election petition presented by the respondent Mr Graham Moore should be dismissed because it failed to give information required by the Election Petition Rules 1960 (the 1960 Rules) and/or was not duly served. The Divisional Court concluded that the trial of the petition should proceed. That decision is challenged by the appellants Ms Sarah Pochin (the candidate declared to have been elected) and Mr Stephen Young (the returning officer). While the court found that a petition should state the date of return to the Clerk of the Crown (answering the first issue affirmatively), it held that Parliament did not intend this omission to invalidate the petition in these circumstances where no prejudice had occurred. The court also held that CPR 6.15(2) empowers courts to retrospectively validate steps taken to serve an election petition within

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