Thames Water Tries to Slap £1,400 an Hour Legal Bill on MP Charlie Maynard as 'Retaliation' for Challenging Government Control
A British water company is facing criticism after trying to make an MP pay its hefty legal fees of up to £1,400 an hour as "retaliation" for pushing for government control over the crisis-hit utility. The UK's highest court rejected Thames Water's arguments that Liberal Democrat MP Charlie Maynard should be forced to foot the bill.
Thames Water, the country's largest water company, has been on the brink of collapse due to a massive £17 billion debt built up since privatisation. Its effective owners have requested leniency from environmental fines for 15 years in order to recover. In a court battle over an investor bailout, Maynard was granted special permission to represent the public interest, but appealed, arguing that the company should be placed under temporary government control.
Thames Water's lawyers argued that Maynard should be made personally liable for its expensive legal fees to "deter" future appeals to the supreme court. However, Maynard described this as "retaliation" for pushing for his party's political aim of putting the company into special administration.
The water company has been heavily backed by a group of hedge funds, including American firms Elliott Investment Management and Silver Point Capital, which together manage billions of pounds in assets. The lenders also supported Thames Water's decision to pursue Maynard for costs.
Maynard expressed relief after facing the prospect of a ruinous bill but said that he believed Thames Water had acted as an act of retribution for arguing that the company should be placed into special administration in the interests of billpayers who have no choice but to pay it for its services.
Cat Hobbs, director of campaign group We Own It, stated that Thames Water was trying to silence debate about their "state-sanctioned rip-off" by attempting to punish Maynard for taking them to court. She added that this "absolutely disgusting behaviour from Thames Water is the strongest evidence yet of why the government must urgently take it into special administration right now."
In legal submissions, Thames Water argued that there was no reason at all why Maynard should not pay its costs for the appeal to the supreme court, saying he had been given a full opportunity to express his concerns in the lower courts.
The company claimed that Maynard's application was made solely to disrupt the implementation of the plan and restructuring aimed at putting Thames Water on a more stable financial footing. The company said this kind of conduct should be deterred.
However, people close to Thames Water and its lenders denied that retaliation was involved, stating that the arguments were made on points of law in response to Maynard's own submissions.
Thames Water has faced criticism over its spending of up to £15m a month on an army of lawyers, bankers, consultants, and public relations advisers. A spokesperson for the company stated that Maynard was allowed to make submissions at both high court and court of appeal without liability for costs, adding that all parties have to pay their own costs.
A spokesperson for Thames Water's lenders said no costs were pursued against Maynard in respect of their legal fees, but claimed an SAR would delay complex turnaround and see taxpayers bear the risk and billions of pounds it will cost to fix the water company.
A British water company is facing criticism after trying to make an MP pay its hefty legal fees of up to £1,400 an hour as "retaliation" for pushing for government control over the crisis-hit utility. The UK's highest court rejected Thames Water's arguments that Liberal Democrat MP Charlie Maynard should be forced to foot the bill.
Thames Water, the country's largest water company, has been on the brink of collapse due to a massive £17 billion debt built up since privatisation. Its effective owners have requested leniency from environmental fines for 15 years in order to recover. In a court battle over an investor bailout, Maynard was granted special permission to represent the public interest, but appealed, arguing that the company should be placed under temporary government control.
Thames Water's lawyers argued that Maynard should be made personally liable for its expensive legal fees to "deter" future appeals to the supreme court. However, Maynard described this as "retaliation" for pushing for his party's political aim of putting the company into special administration.
The water company has been heavily backed by a group of hedge funds, including American firms Elliott Investment Management and Silver Point Capital, which together manage billions of pounds in assets. The lenders also supported Thames Water's decision to pursue Maynard for costs.
Maynard expressed relief after facing the prospect of a ruinous bill but said that he believed Thames Water had acted as an act of retribution for arguing that the company should be placed into special administration in the interests of billpayers who have no choice but to pay it for its services.
Cat Hobbs, director of campaign group We Own It, stated that Thames Water was trying to silence debate about their "state-sanctioned rip-off" by attempting to punish Maynard for taking them to court. She added that this "absolutely disgusting behaviour from Thames Water is the strongest evidence yet of why the government must urgently take it into special administration right now."
In legal submissions, Thames Water argued that there was no reason at all why Maynard should not pay its costs for the appeal to the supreme court, saying he had been given a full opportunity to express his concerns in the lower courts.
The company claimed that Maynard's application was made solely to disrupt the implementation of the plan and restructuring aimed at putting Thames Water on a more stable financial footing. The company said this kind of conduct should be deterred.
However, people close to Thames Water and its lenders denied that retaliation was involved, stating that the arguments were made on points of law in response to Maynard's own submissions.
Thames Water has faced criticism over its spending of up to £15m a month on an army of lawyers, bankers, consultants, and public relations advisers. A spokesperson for the company stated that Maynard was allowed to make submissions at both high court and court of appeal without liability for costs, adding that all parties have to pay their own costs.
A spokesperson for Thames Water's lenders said no costs were pursued against Maynard in respect of their legal fees, but claimed an SAR would delay complex turnaround and see taxpayers bear the risk and billions of pounds it will cost to fix the water company.
. I mean, if they're not willing to be transparent about their finances and work together with the government to resolve the crisis, then maybe they should have to foot the bill themselves. It's only fair that the public is protected from these corporate sharks and their outlandish legal fees 
.
.
. If Thames Water can't get its act together and work with the government to fix this mess, then maybe the public should be in charge of fixing it 
.
this is just crazy talk £1,400 an hour legal bill? Are you kidding me?! It's not like Maynard wasn't warned about the costs or something... Thames Water's always been a shady company and now they're trying to strong-arm our MP for doing his job. It's like they think he should be made an example of just so no one else dares challenge their control 
. I mean, what's next? They'll try to make him pay for air or water too lol 
. This is such a slap in the face and it shows how out of touch this company is with its customers... we need special admin ASAP 
This is just ridiculous! I mean what even is going on here? Thames Water can't handle its own debts so they're trying to slap a £1,400 an hour legal bill on MP Maynard? That's like asking someone to pay for their neighbor's mortgage while the neighbor sits on the couch playing video games all day. It's just not right! 
Thames Water is trying to charge MP Charlie Maynard a whoppin' £1,400 an hour in legal fees as "retaliation" for pushing for gov control over the crisis-hit utility? 
Thames Water's move seems like a total overreaction to me. If they're worried about their costs, maybe they should've thought of that before trying to privatize in the first place... 
Cat Hobbs is totally on the right track when she says this is an example of Thames Water trying to silence debate about their outrageous practices. We need more people like Maynard speaking out against corporate greed! 
It's all about lining those hedge fund pockets, imo...
. Thames Water needs to get their act together and stop playin' games with the public's money 
i mean come on Thames Water, you're having major financial struggles and instead of working with the gov or MPs, you try to intimidate them into silence. newsflash: it won't work. people are watching and they won't back down from a fight like this. btw £17billion in debt is wild... that's like, a whole lot of pipes to fix 
. Instead of addressing the concerns of its customers and the public, they're trying to silence debate by making an MP pay for their own legal fees. It's like saying "we won't listen to your complaints, so just shut up" 
.
.
.
. The fact that the UK court rejected this move shows that there's some sanity left in the system, but seriously how can a water company keep using its lawyers as an excuse to bully MPs like Maynard? It's not like he's asking for free rides or anything 
this is just so messed up. like what even is £1,400 an hour as a "legal fee" lol. idk how many hours you'd have to work at that rate to pay off your student loans let alone a water bill