You can read the Government's Statement of Costs - totally over £508,000 - here. rebrand.ly/d-costs-1502
Government used an incredible 11 solicitors (4 senior solicitors, i.e. over 8 years PQE), 6 junior counsel and 2 QCs.
As a result, Government has incurred £70k communicating with themselves internally. Note – this is not communicating with counsel, which they include separately. This is just their lawyers, speaking to themselves.
Government has incurred a staggering £205k of costs preparing documents for a one day judicial review.
The total time spent by their solicitors (again, not counsel, not the external law firm, just Government's own solicitors) is just short of 2000 hours (1983 hours to be exact).
Indeed, so staggering are the Government's costs of a one day judicial review, that they spent 42 hours just preparing the schedule of costs.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
When we are told we are more impactful than the Opposition we are not cheered by the compliment, or critical of the Opposition, we are alarmed by the Government's success in reducing Parliament to an irrelevance.
Politically appointed regulators, a dominant and tame state news agency, the use of public money for Party purposes, a civil service neutral only in name, and an irrelevant Parliament is pretty close to a prescription for the end of democracy.
The Law Lord, Devlin, captured the innate conservatism of the judiciary in his description of them as a "body of elderly man who have lived on the whole unadventurous lives… old-fashioned in their ideas." But even they are likely to be further reigned in by this Government.
Today is the hearing of @GoodLawProject's judicial review of Dominic Cummings' decision to award a lucrative consultancy contract to his friends at Public First.
We are awed by the astonishing 10,709 donations to our crowdfunder.
However, Government has run up a jaw-dropping bill of an estimated £500-600k defending this one day judicial review of a contract worth £564,000. So we have left the crowdfunder open. crowdjustice.com/case/a-river-t…
The Government was unable to obtain a signature for the witness statement of the PM's former Director of Communications, Lee Cain, and so it has withdrawn his witness statement.
Am remembering when Allen & Overy's Head of Litigation told my old Chambers that, so long as I was in Chambers, not only would they not send any work to me, but they would not send any work to any other member of Chambers either.
Here is what @AllenOvery told Law[.]com about the above allegation. I am afraid they are not telling the truth. Here is what Andrew Clark, the firm's General Counsel, wrote to me on 28 February 2020.
There is a lengthy email correspondence between me and @AllenOvery's Head of Litigation and its General Counsel. If "A&O insiders" persist in misrepresenting what happened I will publish it in its entirety.
We don’t know how many contracts Government gave to Saiger because it has been publishing them in lots of different places. Here are the five Government has published on “Contract Finder” which amount to £235m. /1
However, Government has also published five contracts with Saiger on Tenders Electronic Daily (and they are not exactly the same contracts). And they have withdrawn some contracts previously published on Contract Finder. /2
We at @GoodLawProject have a paralegal attending the case management hearing in the Tavistock's appeal in the Bell case on behalf of our trans defence fund. Occasional updates from them as the hearing progresses...
The 'stay' - effectively a suspension of the legal effect of the first instance decision - will continue. That has been agreed between the parties.
Judge doesn't want oral submissions from any of the would-be intervenors at the case management hearing. (I wouldn't read anything in to that.)