@JolyonMaugham
How an obscure rule about court costs could enable the plutocrats to spend their way to victory. Again. /THREAD
There is a rule that if you fight a case and lose you have to pay the other side’s costs. This is a problem in public interest litigation where cases, crowdfunded by the people, are brought against powerful, wealthy organisations. /1
You can do deals with your own solicitors and lawyers where they act for free or for very low rates. You can manage your own costs. /2
But you can never be sure whether you will win a case. And the rules means that if you lose you can have a costs liability which would put you out of business or bankrupt you. /3
The @GoodLawProject faces these difficulties day in and day out. One of the ways in which I manage those risks is by giving a personal indemnity to other claimants. /4
Those other claimants are usually MPs but could also be charities or affected individuals. Giving a ‘personal indemnity’ means that if the case loses I personally will meet the other side's excess costs. /5
I have some ability to do that. Although I now only spend about a quarter of my life doing paid work I am still paid very well by normal standards. /6
But some defendants spend huge amounts of money and issue stark threats that you will be the one to pick up the tab if the case loses. /7
Uber, for example, which I am personally suing to expose what I believe is tax avoidance of around £1bn and counting could easily spend £1m before any appeals. Why would it not? And I have no financial interest in the case. /8
Uber has issued several threats that if I lose I will pick up those costs. And however, ‘right’ you think you are, it is a risk that is difficult to contemplate. With Uber I believe I have found a ‘work round’. /9
However, the issue is coming to a head with the case the @GoodLawProject’s case against the Electoral Commission in respect of Vote Leave’s spending. /10
Vote Leave is spending furiously . Several months ago, for far less output than the @GoodLawProject’s legal team, it had run up bills of £84,000 (goodlawproject.org/judicial-review-electoral-commission-papers/ …). /11
By comparison, @GoodLawProject’s costs, for far more output, at the same point in time were less than half of that. And we have only raised < £55,000 for all of ours costs. This is considerably less than what we will pay to our legal team. /12
One of the ways in which you can manage your exposure to the other side’s costs is by asking the Court to ‘cap’ them – to limit your liability. And we have asked the Court to do this. But we do not know what it will say. /13
On Monday I will tell the Court that if it does not cap our costs we will abandon the litigation. That litigation, remember, has already succeeded in causing the Electoral Commission to reopen its investigation into Vote Leave. /14
But we also say – an argument the Court has already said has real merit – that there is no need to investigate because on the facts already known it is clear that Vote Leave broke the law. /15
The case is incredibly important for two reasons. First, because Vote Leave was the official campaigner in the Referendum and if it broke the rules MPs set down MPs must know (see this thread twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/994875291691573248 …). /16
The following things are plain:
(1) Parliament set out rules for the fair conduct of the Referendum
Show this thread
Second, because the same or similar rules will govern future election and referendum spending. And we need to know whether – as @SteveBakerHW claimed in an email – Vote Leave found a loophole in those rules. /17
But the case will be dropped if the Court does not grant a costs cap because, although I am wealthy by normal standards, I am a (part time) working barrister and I cannot fund the legal bills of plutocrats. /18
What a supreme irony it would be if a case brought to challenge overspending by plutocrats in our democracy was brought to a halt by huge spending by plutocrats in our courts. /19
Anyway. I am tweeting this for two reasons. First, because you, the funders of this case, and the people for whom democracy should work, should know what’s happening. /20
And, second, because if there’s someone out there who wants to see our democracy protected and has greater financial means than I do, I need to know by tomorrow. /21
I have spent nine months working on this incredibly important case. I have not earned one penny - and that's fine. But to contemplate having to throw the towel in because the plutocrats can outspend the people? That leaves me very fearful for democracy. /ENDS
twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/995210585649434625
Above all else, the collapse of our legal system: impending lawyers' strike; rogue HO and gov departments; defendants with no legal representation; this potential collapse of Maugham's challenge, is the most dangerous threat to our democracy.