Thames Water, the UK's largest water company, attempted to force a Liberal Democrat MP to pay its substantial legal fees, a move described as 'completely extraordinary' and an act of 'retaliation' for his advocacy of temporary government control.
A Bid to 'Deter' Public Interest Challenges
The UK's Supreme Court this week rejected Thames Water's arguments that Charlie Maynard, the MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, should be held personally liable for legal costs that reached up to £1,400 per hour. Maynard had been granted permission to represent the public interest in a court battle concerning a bailout for the crisis-hit utility.
Thames Water's barristers contended that making Maynard pay would serve to 'deter' future appeals to the supreme court. In legal submissions, the company suggested his application lacked merit and was a political move to disrupt its restructuring, aiming for the company to be placed into a special administration regime (SAR).
The Stakes: A Ruinous Bill and a Company in Crisis
For Maynard, the prospect of covering Thames Water's legal fees was daunting. While the exact sum for the supreme court case was not detailed, a statement of costs from the Court of Appeal stage revealed Thames Water had incurred £2.3 million in legal fees for that segment alone.
This included cumulative fees of £812,000 for 141 hours of work from its barristers. Any costs imposed would have been devastating for an individual, though they are dwarfed by the company's overall spending of up to £15 million a month on advisers.
Thames Water is struggling under a £17 billion net debt mountain and its effective owners, a group of lenders including aggressive American hedge funds like Elliott Investment Management, have asked the government for 15 years of leniency from environmental fines.
Accusations of Retaliation and Chilling Effects
Maynard expressed relief at the court's decision but was forthright in his criticism. 'I find it completely extraordinary,' he said. 'What is the largest water company in the country doing trying to run an MP off the road?' He accused the company of retribution for his argument that temporary public control would be in the best interest of its 16 million customers.
Cat Hobbs, director of the campaign group We Own It, labelled the behaviour 'absolutely disgusting' and 'truly chilling'. She stated, 'Thames Water wanted to silence debate about their state-sanctioned rip off – trying to punish the one MP who had the bravery to take them to court.'
People close to Thames Water and its lenders denied any retaliation, insisting the arguments were made purely on points of law. A spokesperson for the lenders also stated that an SAR would delay the company's turnaround and force taxpayers to bear the cost.
