header-logo header-logo

06 August 2010
Issue: 7429 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Public law

R (on the application of the Electoral Commission) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and another [2010] UKSC 40, [2010] All ER (D) 324 (Jul)

Where it was shown that a political party had accepted a donation from an impermissible source, there should be an initial presumption in favour of forfeiting the donation, with the onus falling on the party concerned to show why a donation that had been received from an impermissible source should not be forfeited.

However, if it was shown that the donor was in a position to qualify as a permissible donor by registering on an electoral register, the initial presumption in favour of forfeiture would be rebutted, with the question then being whether there had been any failure to comply with those requirements of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 that were designed to ensure that such donations were not accepted, and the nature of those failures.

Section 58(2) of the 2000 Act conferred a power to order forfeiture of an amount equal to the value of an impermissible donation,

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

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