Challenge of Election Results in UK Law

That is true, but the effect of the words “except such as are by this Act otherwise provided for” in section 154(1) is to limit the circumstances in which non-parties can be responsible for costs to the circumstances set out in any provision in the Act, and the only provision in the Act which does that is section 156. I appreciate that statutory provisions should be construed if possible so as to be consistent with legal policy.

2. If the election was so conducted that it was substantially in accordance with the law as to elections, it is not vitiated by a breach of the rules or a mistake at the polls - provided that it did not affect the result of the election. That is shown by the Islington case where fourteen ballot papers were issued after 8 p.m.

Section 157(2) is directing the High Court and election court to observe certain principles and rules on which House of Commons committees used to act subject only to the provisions of the 1983 Act and the Rules. It is saying that the High Court and the election court cannot use those earlier principles and rules if they are inconsistent with the Act and the Rules but otherwise they must.

Flexibility and discretion are all very well but there is merit too in certainty, not least in the field of electoral challenge. It is undesirable to have someone serving in a public office with doubts surrounding the legitimacy of his election.

As to what should happen, on one view the congregation should be given an opportunity to voice and consider objection to each of the 5 Singhs announced on 3.5.15. Once there are 5 Singhs who are recognised or accepted without legitimate objection, they should elect the MC and the congregation should have an opportunity to accept or object to each person so elected.

The Respondents' case is that by Rule 6 of the Election Petition Rules 1960, service has to be effected in the manner in which a claim form is served. In Ali v. Haques [2006] All ER (D) 113, it was held that each of the Respondents, including the Returning Officer, was an individual. Moreover, regard had to be had to the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules to determine whether there had been valid service.

It is important to note that it is the duty of the nominee, either himself or through an agent, to present valid nomination papers in time. Moreover, whatever can be said about the failings on the part of the returning officer, the deputy returning officer or their staff, the respondents' responsibility to put the correct information on the forms was at no stage transferred to the returning officer.