EDRIElection Dispute Resolution Index

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section addresses nomination paper validity and returning officer decisions, not enumeration of parties with standing to contest an election. While paragraph 6 references election petitions as a mechanism to question nomination validity, the text does not enumerate which parties (candidates, voters, parties, officials) possess standing to file an election petition or contest election results generally. The statute mentions that nomination decisions are 'final and shall not be questioned in any proceeding whatsoever' (para 5) except by election petition (para 6), but provides no statutory enumeration of who may bring such a petition. Standing rules for election contests would be found in other sections of RPA 1983 (such as those governing election petitions under Schedule 1 or elsewhere), not in this nomination-specific provision.

RPA 1983 s. 134(1) explicitly and unambiguously specifies the court of original jurisdiction for Scottish local authority election contests. Venue is determined by statutory rule: the sheriff principal of the sheriffdom(s) in which the challenged election took place, with a defined escalation path (case stated to the Court of Session in case of disagreement among multiple sheriffs principal). The provision codifies both court identity and geographic jurisdiction with precision. The criterion asks whether venue is 'specified by statute'—it is, in clear and binding terms.

“An election petition questioning an election of councillors in Scotland, and all proceedings incidental to and consequent on it, except as otherwise provided, shall be tried— a by the sheriff principal of the sheriffdom within which the challenged election took place; or b where the election was in respect of a local authority whose area is situated within more than one sheriffdom, by the sheriffs principal of the sheriffdoms in which the area of the authority is situated”

RPA 1983 § 122(1) specifies a clear, statutorily-codified filing deadline for election contests (parliamentary election petitions): 21 days after the return is made to the Clerk of the Crown. The statute also provides alternative timelines under subsections (2) and (3) for petitions alleging corrupt or illegal practices, with specific trigger dates tied to payment or act dates. These deadlines are unambiguous, numerically defined, and pegged to objective events (return of member, payment date, or expense-return receipt). The criterion requires only that a deadline be specified by statute; it does not require a single uniform deadline or that all possible dispute types share identical timelines. This section clearly satisfies that requirement.

“a parliamentary election petition shall be presented within 21 days after the return has been made to the Clerk of the Crown, or to the Clerk of the Crown for Northern Ireland, as the case may be”

Section 157(2) explicitly references 'evidence' as a principle and rule to be observed in election petitions, establishing that evidentiary rules exist and must be applied. However, the statute does not codify the substantive evidentiary standards or the standard of proof in the RPA 1983 itself. Instead, it incorporates by reference 'the principles, practice and rules on which committees of the House of Commons used to act' and directs courts to apply principles 'so far as may be' or 'as far as may be'—language that suggests incorporation of common law and historical practice rather than statutory codification. Subsection (3) grants the High Court the same powers as if the petition were an ordinary action, further delegating evidentiary standards to general civil procedure rather than statutory specification. The criterion requires codification in statute; incorporation by reference to common law principles and historical practice does not satisfy a demand for statutory codification of the standard of proof and admissibility rules, though it does acknowledge that such rules exist and must be observed.

“the principles and rules with regard to— a agency, b evidence, c a scrutiny, and d declaring any person elected in place of any other person declared not to have been duly elected, shall be observed, as far as may be, in the case of a petition questioning an election”

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: EAA 2006 s. 46 addresses remedial powers of returning officers for errors in conduct of the election but expressly prohibits recounts after result declaration. The section does not codify recount procedures—who counts, how counts are conducted, or what evidentiary standards apply. Instead, it creates a narrow power to remedy non-compliant acts or omissions before declaration. The prohibition on post-declaration recounts eliminates the section as a source of recount procedural rules. Recount procedures, if they exist in UK law, are not defined in this section and would need to be located in other statutory instruments or regulations (notably the Representation of the People Rules 1986). This section therefore does not satisfy the criterion of defining recount procedures in statute at this location.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Section 155 of the RPA 1983 addresses cost sanctions and recognisance forfeit procedures in election petitions—specifically, consequences for petitioners who fail to pay witness costs or respondent costs within specified periods (6 months for parliamentary elections, 3 months for local government elections). This section does not codify a certification deadline—that is, it does not establish when election results become official or when certification must occur. It is entirely procedural, governing remedies for non-payment during dispute resolution. To satisfy TIME.1, the statute must specify when the returning officer or electoral authority must certify the result as official. Section 155 contains no such provision.