Moore v Royal Mail: High Court limits election petition respondents and clarifies service rules

The Divisional Court's recent judgement in Moore v Royal Mail Group Limited & Ors [2025] EWHC 2320 (KB) provides crucial guidance on election petition procedures, particularly regarding proper respondents and service requirements following the closely contested Runcorn and Helsby by-election.

Statutory framework for election petition respondents

The court definitively ruled that only the elected member and returning officer may be named as respondents under section 121(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1983. Graham Moore's attempt to join Royal Mail Group Limited and Cheshire Constabulary as respondents failed, with Mrs Justice Yip and Mr Justice Butcher emphasising that the statutory scheme provides no residual discretionary power to override these limitations.

The court rejected Moore's argument that common law principles permitted additional respondents, stating that the specific statutory process cannot provide remedy for common law rights or breaches by third parties. This represents a significant restriction on petitioners' ability to challenge alleged election interference by non-statutory parties.

Technical compliance with petition requirements

Several technical challenges to the petition's validity were rejected. The court found that Rule 4 of the Election Petition Rules 1960 does not require separate specification of the return date to the Clerk of the Crown when the election and result declaration dates are provided. The returning officer's obligation to make returns "forthwith" provides sufficient indication of the return timing.

Similarly, the court dismissed arguments that the petition inadequately stated the election result. Reference to the successful candidate, the petitioner's vote count, and a hyperlink to full results satisfied the requirement to state the result under Rule 4.

Where technical defects existed, the court confirmed that CPR Rule 3.10 permits remedial orders, distinguishing this case from Ahmed v Kennedy where statutory time limits prevented retrospective correction.

Service validation and parliamentary privilege

The most significant aspect concerned service of the petition on Sarah Pochin MP at the House of Commons. While acknowledging this was not service at her usual or last known residence under CPR Rule 6.9(2), the court granted retrospective validation under CPR Rule 6.15(2).

Crucially, the court distinguished retrospective validation from time extension, holding that Rule 19's prohibition on varying prescribed time limits does not prevent deeming steps taken within time to constitute good service. The judgement emphasised that CPR Rule 6.3(1)(e) specifically permits service by court-authorised alternative methods.

The court rejected arguments that posting documents to Parliament constituted contempt, finding insufficient evidence that routine postal service of legal documents fell within parliamentary privilege protections against process service.

Balancing procedural rigour with access to justice

The decision reflects careful balancing between procedural certainty and access to justice. The court acknowledged that many petitioners are unrepresented, citing Miller v Bull regarding the universal franchise extending to those without legal resources or expertise.

Four factors supported retrospective validation: Moore's prompt action, clear service point creation, actual notice within the prescribed period, and absence of prejudice to respondents. The court found these constituted "good reason" with the additional cogency required in election petition contexts.

The judgement reinforces that election petition procedures demand strict compliance whilst recognising that technical defects should not prevent valid challenges where the statutory purposes of prompt, effective notice are achieved. The case provides valuable precedent for future election challenges, clarifying both the limitations on respondent inclusion and the circumstances permitting service validation.