Elections - 1960- 1969
The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database.
lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.
This page lists 3 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.
|Regina -v- His Honour Judge Sir Donald Hurst, ex parte Smith  2 All ER 385|
QBDLord Parker CJ
|The County Court Judge had directed the removal from the electoral register the names of a number of persons who were not party to the proceedings before him. Motions were brought in the Divisional Court for an order of certiorari to quash his directions. The issue arose as to whether there was jurisdiction to do so, having regard to s.107 of the County Courts Act 1959 which provided: "Subject to the provisions of any other Act relating to county courts, no judgment or order of any judge of county courts, nor any appeal proceedings brought before him or pending in his court, shall be removed by appeal, motion, certiorari or otherwise into any other court whatever, except in the manner and according to the provisions of this Act mentioned." Held: Lord Parker CJ said: "The leading case on the matter is Ex p. Bradlaugh (1878), 3 Q.B.D. 509, where Mellor, J., put the principle in these words . . 'It is well established that the provision taking away the certiorari does not apply where there was an absence of jurisdiction. The consequence of holding otherwise would be that a metropolitan magistrate could make any order he pleased without question.'|
To the same effect is a number of cases including, coming to quite recent times, R. v. Worthington-Evans, Ex p. Madan  2 Q.B. at p.152 and Re Gilmore's Application  1 Q.B. at p.588. I am quite satisfied that certiorari will lie against a county court judge if he has acted without jurisdiction, notwithstanding the sections of the County Courts Act, 1959, to which I have referred."
|County Courts Act 1959 107|
|Re Kensington North Parliamentary Election  1 WLR 762|
Streatfeild J, Slade J
|"The question of the burden of proof does not, on the strict wording of section 16, really arise…. I think that with the change of wording under section 16(3) of the Act of 1949 it is for the court to make up its mind on the evidence as a whole whether there was a substantial compliance with the law as to elections or whether the act or omission affected the result".|
|Representation of the People Act 1949 16|
|Devan Nair -v- Yong Kuan Teik  2 AC 31|
PC Lord Upjohn
|(Malaysia) The Malaysian election rules provide in certain circumstances for service by a notice published in the Gazette but such notice was in the event out of time. Held: The respondent's appeal should be allowed and the petition struck out. Lord Upjohn: "So the whole question is whether the provisions of rule 15 are 'mandatory' in the sense in which that word is used in the law ie, that a failure to comply strictly with the times laid down renders the proceedings a nullity; or 'directory', ie, that literal compliance with the time schedule may be waived or excused or the time may be enlarged by a judge. … Circumstances which weigh heavily with their Lordships in favour of a mandatory construction are: (1) The need in an election petition for a speedy determination of the controversy …. (2) In contrast, for example, to the Rules of the Supreme Court in this country, the rules vest no general power in the election judge to extend the time on the ground of irregularity. Their Lordships think this omission was a matter of deliberate design. … The case of Williams -v- Tenby Corporation which has stood the test of nearly 90 years and seems to their Lordships plainly rightly decided, strongly supports the view that the provisions of rule 15 were mandatory. … their Lordships cannot attribute weight to the circumstances that the rules contained no express power to strike out a petition for non-compliance with rule 15."|