The supreme court this week rejected Thames Water’s arguments that Charlie Maynard, the Liberal Democrat MP for Witney, should pay its legal costs after representing the interests of the British public in court.
The Guardian reports:
Maynard was granted unusual permission to represent the public interest in a court battle over an investor bailout for Thames Water. The bailout was approved, but Maynard appealed, arguing that the company, which serves 16 million customers in London and south-east England, should be taken into temporary government control.
Thames Water’s barristers argued that he should be made personally liable for its expensive legal fees to "deter" future appeals to the supreme court.
It would be interesting to know what the supreme court and parliament think of this argument.
Maynard, says the Guardian, described Thames Water's actions as "retaliation" for pushing for government control of the crisis-hit utility
"I find it completely extraordinary,” he said. "What is the largest water company in the country doing trying to run an MP off the road, and saying they want to deter me and others from taking such actions?
"What is the government doing letting a bunch of people run the largest water utility in the country and behave this way?"
A good question. Labour's refusal to life a finger against Thames Water is starting to invite discreditable explanations.
No comments:
Post a Comment