In very limited circumstances, there is an exception, based on case law, to the principle of accepting nomination papers at face value. You may come across a situation where the candidate's nomination is clearly a sham - for example, if a candidate has given an obviously fictitious name or address such as 'Mickey Mouse of Disney Land'. In such a case the nomination paper must be held to be invalid on the grounds that the candidate’s particulars are not as required by law.
In addition, the case law also provides that candidates who give particulars that are obscene, racist or an incitement to crime deliver particulars that are “not as required by law”. This is because they contravene the law and/or will inevitably involve the GLRO in a breach of the law.
When considering the name, the primary consideration should be whether the “name” that has been provided on the nomination form appears to be “obviously fictitious” on the face of the paper.
If the “name” does not appear to be a genuine name and instead appears to be a statement or slogan, for example, you may consider that it is “obviously fictitious”.
Any conclusion would be supported by considering the wider context. For example, does the name appear to be a political slogan made in response to topical political events, rather than the genuine name of a real person?
A court would likely in those circumstances conclude that such names are “obviously fictitious” and that the nomination form should be rejected.