[188] The forerunner to Section 83 of our Elections Act is Section 13 of the English Ballot Act of 1872, which provided: “No election shall be declared invalid by reason of a non-compliance with the rules contained in Schedule 1 of this Act, or any mistake in the use of the forms in Schedule 2 of this Act, if it appears to the tribunal having cognizance of the question that the election was conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the body of this Act, and that such noncompliance or mistake did not affect the result of the election.” [189] The post-1872 versions of this provision in British election statutes (1949) and (1983), use slightly different phraseology. Instead of the words “conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the body of this Act” the modern statutes use the phrase “so conducted as to be substantially in accordance with the law as to elections.” Judicial fora when called upon to interpret similar provisions have tended to assign the same meaning to the two phrases. [190] The celebrated case of Morgan v. Simpson94, set the tempo on how courts in the Commonwealth would interpret versions of the Representation of People Act. At issue in Morgan v. Simpson, was the interpretation and application of Section 37 of the Representation of People Act (1949), which provided thus: “No local Government election shall be declared invalid by reason of any act or omission of the returning officer or any other person in breach of his official duty in connection with the elections or otherwise of the local election rules if it 94  Morgan v. Simpson, [1974] 3 ALL ER 722.   Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            77  |  P a g e