Election challenges
Emyr Thomas dives into the details of how election results can be challenged and what those who wish to challenge a result can expect.
- Details
With local elections taking place this week, Returning Officers and their teams may be considering what options are open to the disgruntled candidate or elector who seeks to challenge a result. Emyr Thomas explains.
Problems at the count? Act quickly!
If, following the declaration, something significant happens which could give rise to a challenge (for instance a bag of postal ballot papers is delivered unexpectedly), it is possible under the election rules to apply to the county court for an order that the sealed envelopes, including the ballot papers, be opened and inspected. This local and relatively inexpensive process can be used to assess whether there might be grounds for an election petition and requires action within days of the election. On no account should any informal count or opening of envelopes take place after the declaration without a court order.
Means of challenge
The only way in which the result of an election can be challenged or questioned is by means of an election petition. The petition is the document issued in the High Court which starts the challenge.
Deadlines
A local government election petition must be issued within 21 days of the election. Where a petition includes a complaint of a corrupt practice which involves, to put it broadly, unlawful payment of money after the election, the key date is 28 days after the date of the payment.
Who may present a petition?
A local government election petition can be presented by four or more persons who voted at the election or had the right to vote, or by a candidate. If the Returning Officer’s conduct is complained of, the Returning Officer may be a respondent to a petition. The successful candidate must always be a respondent.
Contents of the petition
The petition must set out the petitioner’s capacity to present the petition, the date and result of the election, and the grounds on which relief is sought and the relief claimed.
Grounds for challenge
An election may be challenged on the ground that the person whose election is questioned was at the time of the election disqualified or was not duly elected, or on the ground that the election was avoided by corrupt or illegal practices, for general corruption or for employing a corrupt agent. Whether a candidate “was not duly elected” usually means that the candidate did not have a majority of the votes. The remaining grounds all concern what generally may be called wrongdoing in respect of the election.
Acts or omissions by the Returning Officer
No local election will be declared invalid because of an act or omission on the part of the Returning Officer or, any other person in breach of an official duty in connection with the election, if it appears that the election was conducted so as to be substantially in accordance with election law and the act or omission did not affect the result.
If it is shown that an election was not conducted in accordance with election law, the election will only be set aside if either the breach was serious enough to make a significant difference to the election process; or if the breach, though itself trivial, did affect the result. For instance, if there was a counting error affecting the result.
Security for costs
At the time of presenting the petition (or within three days of doing so) the petitioner must give security for costs payable by him to any witness summoned on his behalf or to any respondent. For a local government election, the security will be no more than £2,500.
Within five days after giving security, the petitioner must serve on the respondent and the Director of Public Prosecutions (i) a notice of the presentation of the petition, (ii) details of the security given and (iii) a copy of the petition. These are mandatory time limits, and the court does not have the power to allow service out of time.
Steps to take if served with a petition
The Returning Officer should check that the petition and accompanying documents have been served within the strict time limits described above.
The process of service is also important since there is case law to say that imperfect service can lead to the petition being struck out. Returning Officers should therefore ensure that notes are made of the exact times and dates at which petitions or other documents are delivered, and a note should be made of where documents were received. Envelopes and covering letters should be kept and date stamped, times noted, and a note taken of the precise documents which fall out of the envelopes in which documents have been delivered.
If there are any problems during the election, it is good practice to make a contemporaneous note of what was said and done and of any advice given. If the matter proceeds to a trial of the petition, an accurate note will be invaluable to the Returning Officer and will no doubt assist the election court as well.
Emyr Thomas is a partner at Sharpe Pritchard LLP. He can be contacted on 0207 405 4600 or by email.
Emyr Thomas is a Partner and Parliamentary Agent at Sharpe Pritchard LLP.
For further insight and resources on local government legal issues from Sharpe Pritchard, please visit the SharpeEdge page by clicking on the banner below.
This article is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published. If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any issue raised in this article, please contact us by telephone or email enquiries@sharpepritchard.co.uk.
Click here to view our archived articles or search below.
|
OUR RECENT ARTICLES IPA guidance 2025: Managing PFI distress and preparing for expiry
Jul 03, 2025
Aanya Gujral and David Owens dive into the recent guidance published on managing the risks associated with Private Finance Initiative (“PFI”) projects.
Data (Use and Access) Act – Updating Data Protection Law and more
Jul 03, 2025
On the 19th June 2025, the Data Use and Access Bill (“DUA Bill”) received Royal Assent to become the Data Use and Access Act 2025 (“DUA Act”).
Modifying subsidies: What is permitted and what is not?
Jun 24, 2025
Beatrice Wood and Oliver Slater explore recent developments and discuss the process of awarding subsidies.
Getting new PPP right: Smarter tools for smarter infrastructure
Jun 24, 2025
Nicola Sumner, Steve Gummer and Roseanne Serrelli discuss the 'dos and don'ts' of Public-private Partnerships in their new form.
Zones/RABs and heat networks: The path to an investible infrastructure asset class?
Jun 19, 2025
The UK’s new heat network zoning framework (the outlines for which were drawn by the Energy Act 2023) is set to redefine how low‑carbon heating is delivered by creating geographic zones, where district heat networks are the mandated, optimal solution.
Partial debt guarantees- Reviving Investment in UK Water Infrastructure
Jun 17, 2025
Is it Time for a Public Sector Major Infrastructure Debt Guarantor?
Court gives clarity on consultations : R (The National Council for Civil Liberties) and others v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jun 10, 2025
Chloe Woodward and Joe Walker discuss a recent judgment on when engagement with third parties constitute a formal consultation and must therefore adhere to case law on being 'run fairly'.
URS Corporation Limited v BDW Trading Limited [2025] UKSC 21 – Supreme Court hands down significant judgment for the construction industry
May 27, 2025
Helen Arthur explores a recent Supreme Court judgment on building safety in high-rise buildings, explaining what the decision means for defects claims.
Catch me if you can: Local government blazes a trail in increased SME spending
May 21, 2025
Juli Lau and Natasha Barlow take readers through the report published by the BCC on procurement spending.
Changing Course: Navigating Variations Under JCT and NEC Contracts
May 21, 2025
Tiah Weekes explains the process of changes to contracts in the field of construction.
Lessons in public consultation: High Court finds failures in local authority’s consideration of consultation responses
May 21, 2025
George McLellan and Samuel Hart explore the High Court decision ruling that Lambeth Council broke the law in the process of establishing an LTN in the borough.
Allocating risk in amended JCT contracts: Lessons from John Sisk & Son Limited v Capital & Centric (Rose) Limited
May 12, 2025
David Owens and Elizabeth Withers explore recent developments in construction contract case law.
|
ABOUT SHARPE PRITCHARD We are a national firm of public law specialists, serving local authorities, other public sector organisations and registered social landlords, as well as commercial clients and the third sector. Our team advises on a wide range of public law matters, spanning electoral law, procurement, construction, infrastructure, data protection and information law, planning and dispute resolution, to name a few key specialisms. All public sector organisations have a route to instruct us through the various frameworks we are appointed to. To find out more about our services, please click here. |
OUR NEXT EVENT
|
OTHER UPCOMING EVENTS
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |