. . . . . . . "Evangelou v McNicol"@en . "Evangelou v McNicol"@en . . . . "1082971261"^^ . . . . . . . . . . . "Christine Evangelou and others v Iain McNicol (Labour Party) [2016] EWCA Civ 817 is an English contract law case brought by five members of the Labour Party of the United Kingdom against its General Secretary, Iain McNicol on behalf of the whole party, concerning the eligibility of members to vote in the party's leadership election of 2016. The claimants came to court to challenge the decision of the party's National Executive Committee to bar members from voting in the election if they joined the party after 12 January 2016 (i.e. less than six months before the start of voting). This was due to affect approximately 130,000 new members (around one quarter of the party's total membership). The judge at first instance sided with the claimants, although this decision was overturned on appeal."@en . . . . . . . . . . . . "51309979"^^ . . . . . "Christine Evangelou, Rev. Edward Mungo Lear, Hannah Fordham, Chris Granger, and FM v Iain McNicol"@en . "19488"^^ . . . . "[2016] EWCA Civ 817"@en . "2016-08-12"^^ . . . . . . "Beatson LJ, Macur LJ and Sales LJ"@en . . . . "Christine Evangelou and others v Iain McNicol (Labour Party) [2016] EWCA Civ 817 is an English contract law case brought by five members of the Labour Party of the United Kingdom against its General Secretary, Iain McNicol on behalf of the whole party, concerning the eligibility of members to vote in the party's leadership election of 2016. The claimants came to court to challenge the decision of the party's National Executive Committee to bar members from voting in the election if they joined the party after 12 January 2016 (i.e. less than six months before the start of voting). This was due to affect approximately 130,000 new members (around one quarter of the party's total membership). The judge at first instance sided with the claimants, although this decision was overturned on appeal. On 14 August, it was announced that the claimants would not be challenging this decision in the Supreme Court."@en . . .