Man defeated in Runcorn by-election had not wanted to take legal advice
A by-election candidate who launched a legal challenge against the result after coming last has been ordered to pay £75,000 costs after the case was dismissed by the High Court.
The court found no reason not to order Graham Moore to pay costs, noting that he explicitly said he knew the risks of bringing a challenge.
He stood for the English Constitutional Party (ECP) in the Runcorn and Helsby by-election in May but complained of foul play when he received just 50 votes – the lowest of the 15 candidates.
Mr Moore lodged a parliamentary election petition at the High Court, requesting the by-election be declared void due to a “fraudulent and/or erroneous vote count” and that a full and independent recount take place.
Reform MP Sarah Pochin, who was elected by just six votes, and returning officer Stephen Young asked the High Court to dismiss the case, but judges at an earlier hearing ruled that a trial of the petition should take place before an election court.
The three-day trial in Moore v Pochin & Anor [2025] EWHC 3012 (KB) took place earlier this month before Mr Justice Bryan and Mr Justice Martin Spencer who dismissed the petition, determining that there was “no good reason” why Mr Moore should not pay Ms Pochin and Mr Young’s costs.
Whilst acknowledging that Mr Moore had brought the petition with “the purest of motives to ensure a public airing, and determination, of the concerns he had”, they said: “We do not consider that his motivation amounts to a good enough reason to depart from the normal costs order that costs should follow the event.
“We are satisfied that the petitioner (Mr Moore) was well aware that he was likely to be ordered to pay the costs of the respondents if his petition was dismissed.”
Neither was Mr Moore representing himself as a litigant in person a good enough reason; he had pursued the petition with his “eyes wide open”, the court said.
Indeed, when Mr Young’s solicitors suggested he consult electoral law specialists for advice on his prospects of success and the possible costs consequences, he replied: “I would not wish to be a ‘legal professional’ or take their advice in constitutional matters… I know the risk.”
In the case of Mr Young, the judges ruled that it was appropriate for him to instruct solicitors and experienced counsel given the risk of reputational damage and even criminal charges in relation to breach of official duty.
His costs of £47,470.92 – rounded down to £45,000 – were “appropriate and proportionate” and “significantly lower than might otherwise have been expected”, they said, noting that he had also restricted his claim for costs to allow for a summary assessment and avoid the further costs that a more detailed assessment would incur.
In relation to Ms Pochin, the judges agreed she had also acted reasonably in instructing a suitably experienced direct access counsel to oppose the petition which, if successful, could have had far-reaching consequences for her political career. They summarily assessed her costs as £25,000 plus VAT, £30,000 in total.
The way both counsel had worked together – Mr Young’s taking the lead and Ms Pochin’s following – was “reasonable and appropriate and worked well”, the judges added.
“None of the challenges in the petition had any real prospect of success and that ought to have been apparent to the petitioner (Mr Moore) from the outset.
“The returning officer provided his evidence to the petitioner…more than three months before the start of the trial. Having received this evidence, it ought to have been obvious to the petitioner that the election had been conducted to the relevant legislative standard and that his allegations of fraud and error were without foundation.
“The petitioner could, and should, have withdrawn his petition at any time and not proceeded to trial. He did not do so, instead he maintained, without any evidence or basis in fact, allegations of fraud, ‘sleight of hand’ and the conducting of a ‘chaotic count’. That was his prerogative, but it carried with it the likelihood that he would face an adverse costs order if he lost.”
The court noted that Mr Moore had raised around £35,000 from members of the public through a GoFundMe page, but it was not clear how much of it remained.
Adam Richardson (instructed under the Direct Public Access Scheme) for the first respondent (Ms Pochin). Timothy Straker KC (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard) for the second respondent (Mr Young). Mr Moore, the petitioner, represented himself as a litigant in person.