R (The Good Law Project) v Electoral Commission
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Leggatt |
| Judgment Date | 04 October 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 2553 (Admin) |
| Date | 04 October 2018 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/4908/2017 |
[2018] EWHC 2553 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Leggatt
and
Mr Justice Green
Case No: CO/4908/2017
and
Jessica Simor QC, Tom Cleaver and Eleanor Mitchell (instructed by Deighton Pierce Glynn) for the Claimant
Richard Gordon QC and Gerard Rothschild (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Defendant
Timothy Straker QC and James Tumbridge (instructed by Venner Shipley) for the First Interested Party
Judgment Approved
Lord Justice Leggatt (giving the judgment of the court):
When the judgment in this case at [2018] EWHC 2414 (Admin) was handed down on 14 September 2018, the court indicated that the order giving effect to the judgment would be pronounced in court at a later date after considering written submissions from the parties on the appropriate form of order and other consequential matters. We have received and considered such submissions filed on behalf of each of the claimant, defendant and first interested party (Vote Leave Limited). These are the reasons for the orders that we now make.
Form of declaration
In the final paragraph of the judgment dated 14 September 2018, we indicated that we would make a declaration which records our conclusion. The defendant, with the concurrence of the claimant, has proposed a form of declaration mirroring the wording of paragraphs 81 and 94 of the judgment. Vote Leave proposed that the court should make a declaration mirroring only paragraph 94.
We do not consider either proposal satisfactory. Paragraphs 81 and 94 of the judgment are part of the court's reasoning but do not state its conclusion on the issue raised by the claim. The court was not deciding, and does not have power to decide, questions of law in the abstract – but only how the relevant law is to be interpreted in its application to the facts of the present case. The issue raised by the claim is whether, on the proper interpretation of the definition of “referendum expenses” in section 111(2) of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the three payments totalling £620,000 made by Vote Leave Limited to AggregateIQ Data Services Limited between 16 and 21 June 2016 to pay for advertising services purchased by Mr Darren Grimes (“the AIQ Payments”) were referendum expenses incurred by Vote Leave. The declaration made should therefore record the court's conclusion on that issue. We have accordingly formulated it as follows:
“On the proper interpretation of the definition of “referendum expenses” in section 111(2) of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the three payments totalling £620,000 made by Vote Leave Limited to AggregateIQ Data Services Limited between 16 and 21 June 2016 to pay for advertising services purchased by Mr Darren Grimes were referendum expenses incurred by Vote Leave Limited.”
After this judgment was circulated to the parties' representatives in draft, leading counsel for the claimant wrote to the court asking that the court's order should additionally declare that a payment of £100,000 made by Vote Leave Limited to AggregateIQ Data Services Limited to pay for advertising services purchased by Veterans for Britain was also a referendum expense incurred by Vote Leave Limited. She pointed out that this payment was referred to in the claimant's grounds...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen (on the application of the Good Law Project) v The Electoral Commission
...handed down its judgment on ancillary matters, including the form of the declaration which it granted to reflect its judgment: see [2018] EWHC 2553 (Admin). The declaration was in the following terms: “On the proper interpretation of the definition of ‘referendum expenses’ in section 111(2......