The Good Law Project, R (on the application of) v Electoral Commission, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 04, 2018, [2018] EWHC 2553 (Admin)

Resolution Date:October 04, 2018
Issuing Organization:Administrative Court
Actores:The Good Law Project, R (on the application of) v Electoral Commission
 
FREE EXCERPT

Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 2553 (Admin)

Case No: CO/4908/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

DIVISIONAL COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 04/10/2018

Before:

LORD JUSTICE LEGGATT

and

MR JUSTICE GREEN

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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 ApprovedLord Justice Leggatt (giving the judgment of the court):

  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL