Court dismisses Protective Costs Order but allows petitioners time to set out facts in local borough Mayoral Election challenge


Re: Erlam & Ors v Rahman & Anor [2014] EWHC 2766 (QB)

The petitioners sought to challenge the Mayoral Election in the Borough of Tower Hamlets. Pursuant to their challenge they sought a Protective Costs Order (PCO).

The successful candidate in the election, Mohammed Rahman, applied to dismiss the petition.

The Court dismissed the PCO application, noting that the petitioners failed to disclose their financial means. In obiter comments, the Court noted that there has never been a PCO in an election case and they are probably inapt for an election petition.

The Court also refused to strike out the application of the petitioners. The Election Petition Rules 1960, r 4(d) require the petitioner to set out with sufficient particularity the facts relied on. The Court accepted that the petition, at the time of the hearing, failed to do this, but granted the petitioners until the 18 Aug 2014 to remedy this deficiency.

James Laddie QC and Sarah Hannett were involved in this case.