High Court declares town council ward election void over nomination issues

A High Court judge has held the election of three town councillors in Cheshire to be void after it emerged that their nominations were defective.

In Parkinson v Lewis & Ors [2016] EWHC 725 (QB) (18 March 2016) Charles Parkinson lodged a petition under s. 127 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 over the election of councillors to Winsford Town Council.

Mr Parkinson had stood unsuccessfully for election in the Over ward, coming sixth out of nine candidates. The respondents – Gina Lewis, Graham Crawley and Margaret Dolphin – were elected.

The petition lodged by Mr Parkinson was based on the assertion that Messrs Lewis, Crawley and Dolphin were not duly elected, because their nomination as candidates in the election was flawed.

The wording of the precedent nomination form in the annex to schedule 3 of the Local Election (Parishes and Communities) England and Wales Rules 2006 states: “We the undersigned being local government electors for the said ward/parish/community, do hereby nominate the under mentioned person as a candidate at the said election.”

However, the nomination papers for the Winsford election omitted the word ‘ward’, something which His Honour Judge Saffman said might be thought was “an unfortunate omission” in the circumstances of the case.

Under Rule 6(1) of the 2006 Rules, the nomination paper “must be subscribed by two electors as proposer and seconder”, a mandatory provision.

An elector for this purpose was defined by Rule 6(7)(a) as meaning “who is registered in the register of local government electors for the electoral area in question on the last day for the publication of notice of the election”.

It was accepted by the parties that in this case the proposer and seconder must be registered for the Over award since that was the electoral area in question.

However, neither Mrs Dolphin’s proposer and seconder were registered as electors for the ward. In Mrs Lewis and Mr Crawley’s cases, their proposer was a resident of the Over ward but their seconders were not.

HHJ Saffman said the case was overarchingly concerned with the question of what was the legal effect of the admitted failure by all three candidates to comply with Rule 6(1).

The judge decided the matter against the background that none of the three respondents knew that their proposer and/or seconders rendered them in breach of the requirements of Rule 6. He also said there was no evidence that the proposers and seconders knew they were ineligible to act.

HHJ Saffman said the position of the returning officer accorded with that of Mr. Parkinson, “namely that the failure to comply with Rule 6 means that the first three respondents were not duly elected bearing in mind that the requirement is not just that the candidates are elected but that they are duly elected; that is elected in accordance with the primary and secondary legislation”.

After this point, however, the petitioner and the returning officer were said to have parted company somewhat, “in that the returning officer's position is that the election being void must be rerun”.

Mr Parkinson argued that there should be a declaration that he was duly elected as councillor for the Over ward, along with the only other two candidates whose proposers and seconders came from the ward, and who thus had valid nomination papers. He made the point that of the nine candidates for this ward, only those three complied with the rules.

HHJ Saffman said he had no power to make the declaration sought by Mr Parkinson. “The court can determine whether the respondents who were candidates were duly elected or whether the election is void. There is no power granted by section 145 [of the 1983 Act] to declare that the successful candidates were not duly elected but that the petitioner is.”

The three respondents insisted that their election should stand and the petition be dismissed, but the judge rejected their arguments and held that the election for the Over ward was void and would have to be re-run.