Ireland v Dorries

In an election petition, service rules must be applied strictly because the public interest requires early certainty about the validity of an election. Alternative service under rule 6.15(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 may be authorised prospectively where the election-petition rules adopt CPR methods of serving a claim form. The court left open whether retrospective validation under rule 6.15(2) is available after the statutory service period has expired. In any event, retrospective validation requires compelling good reason. Relevant factors include the respondent’s knowledge of the petition’s full content, attempts at personal service, inquiries about the respondent’s address, use of available communication channels, promptness, and any failure by the respondent to co-operate.

The applicant challenged the respondent’s election as Member of Parliament, alleging conduct contrary to sections 106 and 110 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. The merits were not determined.

The petition was presented on 28 May 2015. Security was given on 29 May, making 5 June the final day for service. The applicant posted the petition and related documents to a local Conservative Association office rather than to the respondent’s residence. The respondent did not receive them until after the deadline.

A Master retrospectively ordered under rule 6.15(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 that the postal service was good service. The respondent applied to set that order aside and to dismiss the petition. The issues were whether alternative service was available and whether retrospective validation was justified.

1. Disposition. The order validating service was set aside. The petition was declared a nullity and dismissed.

2. Prospective alternative service. Sections 121(5) and 136(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 require service in the prescribed manner. The Election Petition Rules 1960 prescribe service in the manner applicable to a claim form, and CPR rule 6.3(1)(e) includes service authorised under rule 6.15. A prospective order under rule 6.15(1), made before expiry of the five-day period, can therefore authorise alternative service.

3. Retrospective validation. The court expressed no view on whether rule 6.15(2) permits retrospective validation after expiry of the period in EPR rule 6, in view of EPR rule 19 and its prohibition on varying the prescribed period.

4. Good reason. Applying Abela v Baadarani [2013] 1 WLR 2043, retrospective validation requires good reason in all the circumstances, assessed by a value judgment. In an election petition, the short timetable serves the public interest in speedy certainty. Any justification therefore requires additional cogency and force.

5. The relevant considerations included whether the petition’s existence and full content had reached the respondent, whether personal service had been attempted, whether reasonable inquiries had been made about the respondent’s residence, whether other communication methods had been used, whether the application was prompt and on notice, and whether the respondent had failed to co-operate.

6. Validation was unjustified. The applicant had not attempted personal service, made sufficient inquiries about the respondent’s residence, used readily available contact channels, or explained the delay and without-notice application. The respondent had not evaded service. Refusing validation was not disproportionate under Article 3 of Protocol I.