CA-2025-002307 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1378

Lord Justice Newey:

What is at issue in this appeal is whether an election petition presented by Mr Graham Moore should be dismissed because it failed to give information required by the Election Petition Rules 1960 (“the 1960 Rules”) and/or was not duly served. The Divisional Court (Yip and Butcher JJ) concluded that the trial of the petition should proceed, but that decision is now challenged in this Court by Ms Sarah Pochin (the candidate declared to have been elected) and Mr Stephen Young (the returning officer).

The petition relates to the Parliamentary by-election which was held for the Runcorn and Helsby constituency on 1 May 2025. Ms Pochin, the Reform UK candidate, was declared to have been elected, having gained six more votes than the Labour Party candidate. Mr Moore, who stood as the English Constitution Party candidate, was reported as having gained 50 votes.

On 15 May 2025, Mr Moore presented a petition seeking to have the result of the by-election declared void and a recount ordered. The petition stated, among other things, that the by-election was held on 1 May, that the result was declared on 2 May, that Ms Pochin was the elected candidate and that he himself was declared as having received 50 votes. The petition further included a link to the results as published by Halton Borough Council.

The respondents to the petition were named as Ms Emma Gilthorpe, who was the chief executive officer of Royal Mail Group Limited (“Royal Mail”) at the time of the by-election; Mr Mark Roberts, the chief constable of Cheshire Constabulary; Ms Pochin; and Mr Young. Royal Mail was subsequently substituted for Ms Gilthorpe as the first respondent.

Also on 15 May 2025, Master Eastman fixed the security for costs required by section 136(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (“the 1983 Act”) at £5,000 and ordered that sum to be paid into Court within three working days. Mr Moore paid £5,000 into Court that same day.

On 16 May 2025, Mr Moore sent an email to, among others, Ms Pochin in which he said:

“The election petition was issued at the high court yesterday 15 05 2025. The Bundle has been sent today to the Stephen Young Returning officer, Sarah Pochin MP, Mark Roberts Head of Cheshire Police, Emma Gilthorpe Head of Royal Mail and the DPP by recorded next day delivery.”

It appears that the petition was attached to the email and that the email to Ms Pochin was opened at 23.50 on 16 May.

Mr Moore also sent each respondent a copy of the petition (together with copies of Master Eastman’s order and the cheque by which he had deposited the £5,000) in the post, by Royal Mail Special Delivery. The letter to Ms Pochin was addressed to her at the House of Commons and a Royal Mail “Track your Item” document indicates that it was delivered on 19 May 2025. Ms Pochin has herself explained in a witness statement:

“On or around 20 May 2025, I became aware that a bundle of documents had been sent to my parliamentary address at the House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA and were provided to me by the security at the House of Commons. I understand these documents were an election petition.”

The Divisional Court accordingly concluded that Ms Pochin had personally received a hard copy of the petition by 20 May 2025.

All the respondents applied for the petition to be dismissed. Ms Pochin did so by an application notice dated 10 June 2025 on the ground that the petition had not been validly served on her. By his application notice, dated 20 June, Mr Young also relied on failure to effect due service on Ms Pochin but further contended that the petition should be dismissed because, among other things, it did not state the date on which the return was made to the Clerk of the Crown.

Both applications came before the Divisional Court on 25 July 2025. The Court informed the parties on the day that the petition would be dismissed as against Royal Mail and Mr Roberts but it reserved judgment as regards Ms Pochin and Mr Young. In a judgment dated 11 September 2025, the Court explained that it had decided that it should refuse the applications of Ms Pochin and Mr Young and that the trial of the petition should go ahead.

Ms Pochin and Mr Young appeal to this Court. By an order dated 12 September 2025, the Divisional Court granted special leave to appeal limited to the following points of law:

Whether a petition is not in the prescribed form if it fails to state the date of the return to the Clerk of the Crown, even if it states the date of the election and the date of the declaration of the result;

Whether, if a petition is not in the prescribed form if it fails to state the date of the return, CPR rule 3.10 is potentially applicable such that the failure can be remedied under CPR rule 3.10(b);

Whether the Court has power under CPR rule 6.15 retrospectively to validate steps taken to serve a petition within the five day period prescribed by rule 6 of the 1960 Rules.

The Court specifically stated that no leave to appeal was granted in respect of its decision as to how it exercised any discretion it had under either CPR rule 3.10 or CPR rule 6.15.

In the circumstances, we are not concerned with (and have heard no submissions on) the merits of the petition. Nor is there even any issue before us as to whether the Divisional Court was right to consider it appropriate, on the facts, to exercise the power which it considered itself to have under CPR rule 6.15. The matters we have to decide are limited to those for which Ms Pochin and Mr Young obtained special leave. As regards CPR rule 6.15, therefore, the question is whether that rule operates to give the Court power to order steps taken in the past to be good service.