The Good Law Project, R (On the application of) v Electoral Commission & Anor [2018] EWHC 602 (Admin) (23 March 2018)

The Good Law Project, R (On the application of) v Electoral Commission & Anor [2018] EWHC 602 (Admin) (23 March 2018)

Ground 1 raises arguable questions of statutory construction regarding whether payments by Vote Leave to AIQ should be treated as expenses incurred by Vote Leave under PPERA, justifying permission to proceed. Grounds 2 and 3 do not raise issues of law or serve a useful purpose for judicial review, and ground 4 is moot due to the Commission's ongoing investigation.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 602 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: The Good Law Project; Defendant: Electoral Commission; Interested Party: Vote Leave Limited; Interested Party: Mr Darren Grimes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission Hearing (renewed Application)
Outcome
Permission granted in part
Legal Topics
Referendum Campaign Spending, Statutory Interpretation, Electoral Commission Powers, Judicial Review Procedure
Public Law Election Law Referendum Campaign Spending Statutory Interpretation Electoral Commission Powers Judicial Review Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Good Law Project

Claimant

Electoral Commission

Defendant

Vote Leave Limited

Interested Party

Mr Darren Grimes

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission Hearing (renewed Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Electoral Commission misinterpreted statutory provisions on referendum expenses under PPERA and EURA
  2. 2 Whether payments by Vote Leave to AIQ constituted 'referendum expenses' incurred by Vote Leave
  3. 3 Whether the Electoral Commission failed to supervise or investigate as required by statute

Ratio Decidendi

Ground 1 raises arguable questions of statutory construction regarding whether payments by Vote Leave to AIQ should be treated as expenses incurred by Vote Leave under PPERA, justifying permission to proceed. Grounds 2 and 3 do not raise issues of law or serve a useful purpose for judicial review, and ground 4 is moot due to the Commission's ongoing investigation.

Court Disposition

Permission granted in part

Orders

  • Permission to proceed with judicial review granted on ground 1 only
  • Permission refused on grounds 2 and 3