The Good Law Project, R (On the Application Of) v Electoral Commission & Ors [2018] EWHC 2414 (Admin) (14 September 2018)

The Good Law Project, R (On the Application Of) v Electoral Commission & Ors [2018] EWHC 2414 (Admin) (14 September 2018)

The court held that, on the proper interpretation of section 111(2) of PPERA, 'expenses incurred' includes both the outflow of economic benefit by payment and the incurring of a liability, and that the payments made by Vote Leave to AIQ for advertising services contracted by Mr Grimes were 'referendum expenses' incurred by Vote Leave. The Electoral Commission's contrary interpretation was incorrect.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2414 (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
14 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Referendum Expenses, Statutory Interpretation, Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, European Union Referendum Act 2015, Electoral Commission Powers
Public Law Election Law Referendum Expenses Statutory Interpretation Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 European Union Referendum Act 2015 Electoral Commission Powers

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
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 / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Electoral Commission correctly interpreted the law limiting referendum spending under PPERA and EURA
  2. 2 Whether payments made by Vote Leave Limited to AIQ for services contracted by Mr Darren Grimes were 'referendum expenses' incurred by Vote Leave

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, on the proper interpretation of section 111(2) of PPERA, 'expenses incurred' includes both the outflow of economic benefit by payment and the incurring of a liability, and that the payments made by Vote Leave to AIQ for advertising services contracted by Mr Grimes were 'referendum expenses' incurred by Vote Leave. The Electoral Commission's contrary interpretation was incorrect.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that the Electoral Commission misinterpreted the law regarding referendum expenses under PPERA and EURA
  • Electoral Commission to reconsider its approach in light of the court's judgment