THE Electoral Commission “misinterpreted” the definition of legitimate expenses during the EU referendum in favour of Vote Leave, the High Court ruled yesterday.

The Good Law Project (GLP) brought a judicial review over election spending by the pro-Brexit campaign group in the run-up to the June 2016 vote.

Mr Justice Leggatt found the Electoral Commission “interpreted the definition in a way that is inconsistent with both the language and the purpose of the legislation” on referendum spending.

He said the watchdog had attempted to draw a distinction which would be “a recipe for abuse of the spending restrictions.”

The court noted that Vote Leave had paid £620,000 to Canadian firm AggregateIQ at the request of leave campaigner Darren Grimes in the days before the referendum.

This put Vote Leave over its £7 million election spending limit by almost £500,000.

GLP launched the case in October last year, after the Electoral Commission concluded there were “no reasonable grounds to suspect” any incorrect reporting of campaign spending or donations by Vote Leave.

The group’s solicitor Polly Glynn said: “It is vital for democracy that there are limits on the influence that those with money can buy.”