(posted 7937 days ago)The Times
August 01, 2002Campaigners face £10,000 legal bill
By A CorrespondentFINANCIALLY strapped London residents were ordered to pay a £10,000 legal bill for their part in a High Court test case on the legality of the controversial £5 congestion charge for London motorists.
Cathy Preece, 50, and Gareth Adamson, 40, of Kennington, have 56 days to pay the bill, which does not include fees for their own solicitors, estimated at another £10,000.
Lawyers for Ken Livingstone and Transport for London wanted £100,000.
Indicating that they had taken on more than they had bargained but saying they could not expect a “free ride”, Mr Justice Kay, in London, said: “They came to this enormous case in a small family car and found themselves behind a juggernaut.” The costs order is seen as a warning to the public to reconsider before getting involved in high- profile disputes.
Ms Preece, on benefits and income support, and Mr Adamson, who lives on a student grant, had joined Westminster Council and Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council in fighting for a public inquiry and environmental impact assessment of the congestion charging project.
Rejecting their challenges, the judge ordered the councils to pay the £3 million in legal costs. Ms Preece and Mr Adamson, who joined the challenge as members of the Kennington Association, a community campaign group, were that told their share of the bill was £10,000. They were not insured against losing. After the hearing the pair said they would be “going round with the hat” to raise the £20,000.
The Mayor and Transport for London were obliged to apply for their costs under their duty to protect public funds and recover expenditure where possible. Mr Livingstone showed some sympathy and said they should not be “overburdened”. But he did not accept that they brought their case in the public interest but “in the private interests of themselves and members of the Kennington Association”. The judge said if they did not pay the £10,000 in 56 days, the order would be enforced against others who were members of the group on May 24, when the legal action was launched. He gave the association seven days to supply the names of the 60 people who were members on that date.
Ms Preece said: “I don’t know how we are going to get it. Our members are just local people; many are council tenants. What message is the judge giving to others who just want to join a community or residents’ association?"