P381/25 - [2025] EWHC 2320 (KB)

This is the judgment of the Court to which both judges have contributed.

On 1 May 2025, a Parliamentary by-election was held for the Runcorn and Helsby Constituency. It is a matter of public record that the result was very close. Following a recount, the Reform UK candidate Sarah Pochin was elected, having secured six more votes than the Labour Party candidate. The Petitioner, Graham Moore, stood as the English Constitution Party candidate. He received 50 votes.

Pursuant to section 120 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (“the Act”), the sole method of questioning a parliamentary election is by way of presenting an election petition complaining of an undue election or undue return (“a parliamentary election petition”). The procedure for presenting a parliamentary election petition is set out in section 121 of the Act. In England and Wales, a petition must be presented to the High Court. The categories of people who may present a petition include candidates at the election and all those who voted or had a right to vote.

On 15 May 2025, Mr Moore presented an election petition to the High Court seeking to have the election declared void and for there to be an independent recount. He named four respondents: Emma Gilthorpe, who was at the relevant time the Chief Executive Officer of Royal Mail Group Limited; Mark Roberts, the Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary; Sarah Pochin MP; and the returning officer, Stephen Young. By an order of Master Armstrong sealed on 28 May 2025, Royal Mail Group Limited was substituted as first respondent in place of Emma Gilthorpe. In accordance with usual procedure, it has been directed that the trial of the election petition should take place not before 2 October 2025 in the parliamentary constituency of Runcorn and Helsby before an Election Court comprising two judges on the rota. It is important that any trial on an election petition takes place as soon as possible.

Each of the respondents has applied to dismiss the petition. In addition, Mr Moore has applied to vary the order of Master Armstrong dealing with substitution of the first respondent. It is those applications with which we are concerned.

Having heard submissions on the first and second respondents’ applications, we announced that we would allow those applications on the ground that there was no proper basis for their inclusion as respondents. We reserved our reasons while we proceeded to hear the third and fourth respondents’ applications, on which we reserved judgment.