The Good Law Project, R (On the application of) v Electoral Commission & Anor

The Good Law Project, R (On the application of) v Electoral Commission & Anor

Permission to proceed with ground 1 is granted because the statutory construction of 'expenses incurred' under PPERA raises arguable and important questions of law not rendered academic by the Commission's ongoing investigation. Grounds 2 and 3 are refused as they either depend on factual investigation or do not raise issues of law. Ground 4 is moot due to the Commission's decision to investigate.

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; Permission Granted in Part
Outcome
Permission granted in part; permission to proceed with ground 1 only
Legal Topics
Referendum Campaign Spending, Statutory Interpretation, Regulatory Oversight, Donations and Expenses, Common Plan Expenses
Election Law Administrative Law Public Law Referendum Campaign Spending Statutory Interpretation Regulatory Oversight Donations and Expenses Common Plan Expenses

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; Permission Granted in Part

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payments made by Vote Leave to AIQ constituted 'referendum expenses' incurred by Vote Leave under PPERA
  2. 2 Whether the Electoral Commission misinterpreted statutory provisions regarding campaign spending and donations
  3. 3 Whether advice given by the Electoral Commission to Vote Leave was legally correct

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to proceed with ground 1 is granted because the statutory construction of 'expenses incurred' under PPERA raises arguable and important questions of law not rendered academic by the Commission's ongoing investigation. Grounds 2 and 3 are refused as they either depend on factual investigation or do not raise issues of law. Ground 4 is moot due to the Commission's decision to investigate.

Court Disposition

Permission granted in part; permission to proceed with ground 1 only

Orders

  • Case to be listed for substantive hearing no later than mid-July
  • No order as to costs at this stage