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 effect was that the only circumstances in which non-parties to

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll