Ali v Bashir & Anor

Election Petition Rules 1960 rule 4 requires substantive compliance with the matters which an election petition must convey, but it does not require slavish adherence to the prescribed schedule. Documents may be read together and will be sufficient if they are to like effect, convey the essential information, and cause no prejudice to the respondents. The result of the election may be identified without stating the votes cast for every candidate. The grounds of challenge may be inferred from the petition as a whole where the facts sufficiently indicate that the election is challenged on the basis that the successful candidate was not duly elected. Any remediable deficiency in particulars may be addressed by further particulars or witness statements.

Mohammed Ali challenged the local government election for the Maybury and Sheerwater Ward of Woking Borough Council, in which Mohammed Bashir appeared to win by 16 votes. The petition was accompanied by a Part 8 claim form, an application notice, a letter and a schedule identifying 73 votes said to be invalid.

Mr Bashir applied to strike out the petition on the grounds that it was not in the prescribed form, did not state the result of the election, and did not state the grounds on which relief was sought. The court also considered the statutory and procedural requirements governing election petitions, including the effect of Convention rights.

1. Application dismissed. The documents lodged by the petitioner were collectively to be treated as the petition. They substantially complied with rule 4(1) of the Election Petition Rules 1960.
2. Rule 4(1)(b) was satisfied because, read as a whole, the documents identified Mohammed Bashir as the successful candidate and conveyed the result of the election. The rule did not require the number of votes cast for each candidate.
3. The petition sufficiently identified the ground of challenge. The allegations concerning 73 votes, together with the narrow margin, conveyed that the petitioner alleged that the successful candidate was not duly elected. The pleaded facts identified the votes in question with sufficient particularity. Any further deficiency could be dealt with by an application for further particulars or witness statements.
4. The prescribed schedule was not mandatory in the sense that its precise layout had to be copied. Rule 4 permitted a form to like effect. The alternative templates used by the petitioner conveyed the essential information required by rule 4(1)(a)–(d), and their use caused no prejudice to the respondents.
5. This construction was reinforced by the requirement to interpret the rules compatibly with article 3 of the First Protocol and article 6 of the Convention. The court relied on the approach taken in Miller v Bull, while noting that it had reached its conclusion on the ordinary construction of rule 4.
6. The court directed that the scrutiny of the relevant ballots and documents should take place in Woking. The first respondent was ordered to pay the petitioner's and returning officer's costs, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.