Kiernan v Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant sought leave to present an election petition challenging the result of the general election held on 29 November 2024 in the Kerry constituency. The election result for that constituency was declared on the weekend of 30 November 2024. The applicant, an unsuccessful candidate in that election, made the application for leave on 7 March 2025, well after the statutory fourteen-day time-limit for such applications. The application was made by motion ex parte and assigned to a High Court judge nominated to the rota for election petitions. The applicant initially failed to exhibit a draft of the intended petition with her affidavit but was permitted to submit it subsequently. The draft petition alleged irregularities, including the removal of ballot papers by a presiding officer on the evening of the poll and discrepancies in vote counts. The applicant also sought disclosure of certain sealed election documents and access to marked copies of the register of electors.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the application for leave to present the election petition was made within the statutory time-limit prescribed by the Electoral Act 1992 (as amended).
2. Whether the court has jurisdiction to extend the time-limit for presenting an election petition.
3. Whether the applicant is entitled to disclosure of sealed election documents and access to marked copies of the register of electors in the context of an application for leave.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court determined that the application for leave to present an election petition was out of time, having been made more than two months after the fourteen-day deadline following the declaration of the election result. The court emphasized that it lacks statutory power to extend this time-limit. The applicant's own allegations indicated that the principal grounds for the petition were known to her on the evening of the poll, well before the time-limit began to run, negating any argument for concealed fraud or newly discovered evidence that might justify a late application. The court also considered statutory provisions allowing extended time for petitions alleging bribery or election expenses but found these inapplicable as no such allegations were made.

Regarding disclosure requests, the court held that an application for leave is procedural and not a substantive proceeding, thus not the appropriate context for seeking access to election documents. The court further noted that under the Electoral Act 1992, disclosure of sealed documents requires satisfaction that such inspection is necessary for instituting or maintaining a prosecution or election petition, which was not the case here given the time bar. The applicant’s claim of being denied access to marked copies of the register was noted as potentially addressable by separate judicial review proceedings but was not resolvable within the current application.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

The court refused leave to present the election petition on the ground that the application was time barred under the Electoral Act 1992 (as amended). The related request for disclosure of election documents was also refused. No extension of the statutory time-limit was permitted, and no substantive election petition proceedings will follow. The applicant’s grievance regarding access to the marked register was identified as a matter for separate proceedings. No legal costs were awarded as the application was unsuccessful and did not raise any point of law of general public importance. This decision directly concludes the matter between the parties without establishing new legal precedent.