Barbara Rich Profile picture
Sep 15, 2020 5 tweets 2 min read Read on X
Judgment of the Court of Appeal in the women’s pensions #backto60 case, unanimously dismissing the appeal. Court ruled there was 1. no age discrimination, 2. sufficient notice to those affected by changes by DWP, 3. too long a delay in seeking judicial review
No age or sex discrimination, I should have said. The ruling will be a bitter disappointment to campaigners and crowdfunding supporters of the appeal
A disappointment exacerbated by the way in which expectations of the outcome (that the legal arguments would prevail, and that individual women would receive financial restitution) were raised by the campaigners, hand in hand with crowdfunding which lacked transparency
And an inevitable consequence of the way in which expectations were raised and have been disappointed is to undermine supporters' confidence in the legal system and the integrity of judges
Even today, the #backto60 campaign’s leader refers to “full restitution” for the women affected, but today’s judgment makes it clear that they asked the court only for a declaration of unlawfulness, not restitution

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Barbara Rich

Barbara Rich Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BarbaraRich_law

Jan 16
I don’t see any strong correlation between the fact this case was crowdfunded and the fact that there was a client-solicitor dispute about the solicitors’ charges. There is no difference in the duties and remedies in that relationship and those in a non-crowdfunded case
The crowdfunding platform CrowdJustice transfers funds raised directly to solicitors acting in a case, to ensure they are not used for some other purpose by the crowdfunding promoter, but plays no role in reviewing or auditing the solicitors’ bills in any way
The real problem with crowdfunded litigation is that funders have no access to neutral information or legally privileged advice on merits or strategy, and no influence on strategy other than the broad brush of sufficiency or insufficiency of funding for the case to be pursued
Read 6 tweets
Nov 29, 2024
The Bill would create a “state [assisted] suicide service”. It is literal interpretation, not inflammatory to say so. The Bill partially decriminalises the offence of assisting suicide under the Suicide Act 1961 and it gives power to ensure that assistance is available on the NHS Image
Image
This former BBC journalist wrongly stigmatises an MP’s literally accurate phrase as “inflammatory”, and in the same breath describes those here who point this out to him as “those famously robust Elon lads”. He needs a bit less gotcha and a bit more reading of what the Bill says
It isn’t a universal state suicide service, because there are eligibility limits for it. Only people who are terminally ill and have sufficient mental capacity qualify. But it is essentially “on demand” for them. The safeguards are a compliance check not a discretionary filter Image
Read 6 tweets
Jun 6, 2024
This latest GLP crowdfunder is unsurprisingly controversial. I’m not going to repeat the talking points for or against the merits of the legislation. There is a link to a pre-action letter which sets out the legal arguments. But how persuasive are they?

goodlawproject.org/crowdfunder/tr…
Supporters have no access to or indication of the privileged advice on the merits given by the lawyers in the case. And the GLP has not updated its records spreadsheet to show that its most recent crowdfunded judicial review, on voter ID, failed to get permission, as unarguable
The claimant in the case is TransActual CIC. It has instructed its own solicitors and barristers, but not used its own funds. The GLP’s role is just crowdfunding the case, for which it takes 10p in every £ donated and keeps any surplus out of the £75,000 target for its own work
Read 28 tweets
Mar 30, 2024
Matthew Parris’s vision of euthanasia is one where people of full mental capacity and free of coercive influence will rationally choose to “check out early”. It’s a callous vision and it takes no account of frailty, folly, or loss of freedom in making a life or death decision
This case of a man who killed his mother and was indulgently sentenced for his offence was reported this week. I’m troubled by it. Imagine the same events happening in the moral universe Matthew Parris describes? The Sixth Commandment in shades of grey thetimes.co.uk/article/man-wh…

Image
Image
The judge accepted that the son, who had given up work to become a full-time carer for his mother, believed that death was the only solution. But he had *no* right to impose that belief on his mother, who was then incapable of understanding or making such a decision for herself
Read 6 tweets
Dec 4, 2023
The one thing this isn’t is charitable. The crowdfunding page names no lawyers, but describes Chris Packham himself as the case owner. He is not a charity. There is no link to any pre-litigation correspondence or draft grounds of claim, or statement of how a surplus will be used
This link is more informative and makes it clear that there are lawyers acting in the case. But why does Chris Packham, who owes his public prominence to work for the BBC, a public service broadcaster funded by licence payers, need to crowdfund for this litigation?
Read 13 tweets
Nov 3, 2023
A new litigation crowdfunder for a “class action” on behalf of “all” 1950s born women affected by state pension age increases. This appears to be a successor project to a “CEDAW people’s tribunal” which followed the failed crowdfunded #backto60 litigation

crowdjustice.com/case/group-cla…
Image
The litigation prospectus is very vague, and the legal structure and identity of individuals responsible the organisation behind it is opaque. If, as it appears to be, it is a successor organisation to BackTo60, prospective donors should know its history thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions…
HT @BrokenBarnet for drawing this to my attention in an earlier post
Read 20 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(