header-logo header-logo

18 July 2014
Issue: 7615 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Elections

Mabbutt (on his own behalf and on behalf of the Conservative Party) [2014] EWHC 2244 (QB), [2014] All ER (D) 86 (Jul)

The focus of a court’s inquiry in connection with reg 108(3)(b) of the European Parliamentary Elections Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/293) was the act or omission and the good faith (or otherwise) of the applicant for relief. Correspondingly, if the application was successful it was the applicant who was relieved from any liability or consequences in respect of the errors which prompted the application. It might be said that the closing words of reg 108 appeared at first sight to have a wider impact, but should be interpreted as meaning, “and upon the making of the order no such person shall be subject to any of the consequences under these Regulations of that act or omission”. Were it otherwise, a person who should be entitled to relief would be denied it because of the nature of someone else’s act or because of their bad faith. That would not be consistent with the intention of the regulation, which was to provide a mechanism for relief for an applicant

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll