Greene v Forbes

A parliamentary election petition does not automatically abate or end when Parliament is dissolved. Under the current statutory scheme, the High Court retains jurisdiction over the petition and its costs, including an unresolved application to withdraw. Nineteenth-century authorities concerning election committees must be read narrowly and in the light of the present legislation. A petition may be withdrawn only with the court’s permission, and the petitioner remains liable for the respondent’s costs. Allegations in an election petition require evidential support; they cannot be included merely because statutory time limits make detailed investigation difficult.

Michael Greene presented a petition challenging Lisa Forbes’s election at the Peterborough parliamentary by-election held on 6 June 2019. The petition alleged numerous corrupt and illegal practices, but the supporting evidence did not substantiate the allegations against Ms Forbes or her agents.

Following the dissolution of Parliament on 5 November 2019, Mr Greene sought a declaration that the petition and his application to withdraw had abated. He argued that the court therefore lacked jurisdiction over costs and that his security should be returned. The central issues were whether dissolution ended the petition or the court’s jurisdiction, and whether the petition should be withdrawn.

1. The petition did not automatically abate on dissolution. The statutory scheme places parliamentary election petitions before the High Court or an Election Court. Nothing in the current legislation required the proceeding to end merely because Parliament was dissolved. The historic practice of parliamentary election committees could not control the modern statutory and procedural framework.
2. Re Exeter Election Petition; Carter v Mills (1874) L.R. 9 C.P. 117 established only that, following dissolution, the court retained jurisdiction to deal with the return of a deposit. It did not establish that the court’s jurisdiction over an election petition or its costs necessarily ended.
3. Re Taunton Election Petition; Marshall and Another v Sir Henry James (1874) L.R. 9 C.P. 702 established that a costs order made before dissolution remained enforceable. It expressly left open what would happen where judgment and certification occurred after dissolution.
4. The current legislation, particularly Representation of the People Act 1983, preserved the court’s jurisdiction over costs. Section 154 conferred broad powers over the costs of and incidental to an election petition, while section 157(3) gave the High Court the powers and jurisdiction it would have in an ordinary action.
5. The court declined to decide wider questions concerning whether, and in what circumstances, a petition might proceed after dissolution. Those questions should be determined on fuller evidence and argument in an appropriate case.
6. The petition should be withdrawn under section 147. The allegations were not maintained and some should not have been made. The petitioner was liable for the respondent’s costs under section 147(4), and the deposit was to be released to the respondent in part satisfaction of those costs.