TWO Green Party candidates have been refused permission to fight a High Court test case in their battle to become job-share MPs.

Sarah Cope, 36, and Clare Phipps, 26, attempted to stand jointly for the role of MP for Basingstoke in the May 2015 general election.

They planned to share an MP's responsibilities as Ms Cope is the main carer for two young children and Ms Phipps suffers from a disability.

Their nomination was rejected as invalid by the acting returning officer for the Basingstoke parliamentary constituency because they were two people seeking the one seat.

Ms Cope and Ms Phipps both applied for permission to seek judicial review at London's High Court, arguing their human rights had been breached.

But a judge ruled the returning officer's decision was "unarguably correct" and dismissed their application. 

Ms Cope, a single mother of two children aged three and eight years, has been an active member of the party for over a decade and is the chairwoman of Green Party Women.

The court heard her youngest child is on the autistic spectrum and she cannot meet the needs of her family and work full time as an MP.

Ms Phipps, who job-shares a position on the Green Party executive, is researching gender and health as part of a part-time PhD.

Since 2009 she has suffered from a disability known as idiopathic hypersomnia, a chronic condition which means she sleeps for around 12 hours a day.

Their barrister Mathew Purchase argued in court that the difficulties Ms Cope and Ms Phipps faced were common among both women and disabled people and should not be allowed to exclude them from standing as MPs.

Mr Purchase said many other occupations had addressed the same difficulties by permitting job-sharing, including part-time judges being appointed to the High Court.

He contended that the rejection of their nomination paper by returning officer Karen Brimacombe was unlawful.

Alternatively, the Representation of the People Act 1983 and other legislation barring MPs from job sharing was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Dismissing the case, Mr Justice Wilkie said it raised issues which were matters for Parliament itself and "not for the courts to debate and determine".