Graham Harry Moore v Royal Mail Group Limited & Ors

Rule 4(1)(b) of the Election Petition Rules 1960 requires a parliamentary election petition to show the date on which the return was made to the Clerk of the Crown. The date of the declaration of the result is not necessarily that date. However, omission of the return date does not automatically invalidate the petition. The consequence depends on the statutory purpose, the circumstances and any prejudice or injustice caused by the omission. Rule 6(2) incorporates the CPR methods of serving a claim form, including CPR 6.15(2). That rule permits retrospective validation of steps already taken within the prescribed service period. It does not extend or vary that period, but treats the earlier steps as good service when taken. The power should be exercised cautiously in election cases.

Mr Moore presented an election petition concerning the Runcorn and Helsby parliamentary by-election held on 1 May 2025. The petition stated the date of the election and the date on which the result was declared, but did not state the date on which the return was made to the Clerk of the Crown. Mr Moore also sent the petition to Ms Pochin at the House of Commons, where she received it within the five-day period prescribed for service.

The Divisional Court refused Ms Pochin’s and Mr Young’s applications to dismiss the petition and directed that the trial proceed: [2025] EWHC 2320 (KB). Ms Pochin and Mr Young appealed on three points of law concerning the prescribed form, the possible application of CPR 3.10, and the retrospective validation of service under CPR 6.15(2).

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that the trial of the election petition should proceed.

1. Rule 4(1)(b) of the Election Petition Rules 1960 requires a parliamentary election petition to state the date and result of the election and to show separately the date on which the return was made to the Clerk of the Crown. Under the Parliamentary elections rules, the return may involve delivery of the endorsed writ to a designated postal official and subsequent transmission to the Clerk of the Crown. The return date therefore need not be the date of the declaration. The first question was answered affirmatively.
2. The omission nevertheless did not make this petition invalid. The modern approach, reflected in [2005] UKHL 49 and [2024] UKSC 27, is to examine the purpose of the procedural requirement and the facts, including prejudice, injustice and substantial compliance. Here the petition was presented 13 days after the result was declared, so the return date could not affect timeous presentation. Mr Young knew when he had delivered the writ, and no respondent lost any significant opportunity or suffered prejudice.
3. The Court did not need to decide the full scope of CPR 3.10. The petition was defective in form, but Parliament had not intended this omission, in these circumstances, to require dismissal. A document presented as an election petition may constitute a petition even if it is not fully in the prescribed form.
4. Rule 6(2) incorporates the manner in which a claim form may be served under CPR 6.3. CPR 6.15(2) therefore gives the Court power retrospectively to order that steps already taken to bring an election petition to a respondent’s attention constitute good service. Such an order validates steps taken within the prescribed period; it does not extend or vary that period.
5. The power should be exercised rarely and cautiously, having regard to speedy electoral certainty, any lost opportunity to object to security for costs, the ease of effecting proper service, and the fact that actual notice alone is insufficient, although it is an important factor. The Court was concerned only with the existence of the power, not with reviewing the Divisional Court’s exercise of discretion.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeals by Ms Pochin and Mr Young dismissed. The Court held that the petition’s trial should proceed.
• Divisional Court, King’s Bench Division: applications to dismiss by Ms Pochin and Mr Young refused; trial directed to proceed: [2025] EWHC 2320 (KB).