|
|
 |
| |
Costs rethink victory for dissenting voices
LITTLE known to the outside world a fierce battle has been taking place in the sedate offices of solicitors and chambers of barristers representing conflicting parties over the King’s Cross redevelopment scheme.
It turned on how much costs would the objectors to the scheme be compelled to pay if they lost.
In the arcane language of the law, this sort of arrangement is covered by a Protective Costs Order, the amount of which is usually decided by a judge.
We understand that in the exchange of letters between the parties it became clear the firm of solicitors representing Camden Council wanted the objectors – the King’s Cross Think Again Campaign – to be prepared to pay more than £40,000 if their case were lost.
This was considered by the Campaign as being quite beyond their means, so battle commenced as letters shot from one office to the next.
It may well have been that if such high costs had been imposed the Campaign would have had to haul up the white flag.
It may also well have been thought that the council were attempting to ‘blackmail’ the Campaign.
However, commonsense has reigned – commonsense imposed by the High Court judge, His Honour Sir Andrew Collins, who ruled that a £10,000 costs ceiling should be sufficient.
This is more than the outcome of a contest before the High Court. Nor can it simply be defined as a defeat for the council.
It is a blow for the right of people to have their case heard in a matter of supreme public importance.
Whatever the merits of the Campaign’s case, it is important that a real public airing be given to the voice of dissent.
As we have stated before, the council has been content to muddle its way through the various planning applications for the scheme, seemingly without any real awareness that they were responsible for the biggest land development in London for decades.
At last, however, the matter will now go to the highest forum.
Bill ‘man of people’
BILL Budd, who has recently died , is one of the best leaders Camden council never had.
He wasn’t pompous. He wasn’t a spinner. He saw the world as it was – and told it as it was.
If the phrase ‘man of the people’ has any meaning it would have fitted for him.
He should have been groomed and offered the highest office, but the myopic Labour party only saw him as a ‘doer’.
Politicians of his principles are rare.
|
 |
|
|
|
