Taken from GLW's blog:
After a 45 minute conference with one of the top Silks at Matrix Chambers and some excellent details to study, plus answers to a number of questions that I had the opportunity to put together with John West's clarifications and his solicitor - now comes the time for our own deliberations.
The Silk was able to show various ways forward, each with its own benefits and its own costs - there is no problem on funding merely a question of just how far it is worth pursuing EUkip and which aspects provide the best course of action.On the principle of if one conjoins in a mud wrestling competition with pond life one must expect duplicity, dishonesty and corruption it is MY PERSONAL judgement that although, as the Judge in the allocation hearing advised a Judicial Review - the standards of provenance and timing are more critical and although the penalties for EUkip may prove greater the case can proceed with greater certainty of a conclusively beneficial outcome through other means.
EUkip can always use the defence that they have a reputation of dishonesty and corruption easily proven and irrefutable for our prosecution case, therefore to expect honesty or integrity from them when entering an agreement contractually is unreasonable. This defence of implied expectation of dishonesty might stand up in a Judicial Review leaving the matter to fall on a timed out basis.
Delaying still leaves the possibility of what is normally known as a writ of mandamus though now dumbed down in nomenclature so that even the thickest of the plod will recognise it as 'A Mandate' though a term which does not convey its ability to those with more than 3 brain cells. A policy changed by the present Government to more readily align with the dumbed down education system they force upon us - just as, although against the will of the Lord Chancellor, the scope of Judicial Review has been much broadened in the last couple of years to include many more bodies than the formerly narrow field of public bodies, now including more aspects of the structure of Governance even including the some 7,500 QUANGOs mainly created by the present Government as a mop of and sop to the unemployed and unemployable new middle class.
Therefore let us consider the other alternatives where the probabilities are greater and where the verdict is a near certainty, leading to more substantial compensation, rather than a more consequential outcome!
It is also worth considering that the QC's time is costing at £500/hour research/opinion and £1,000/hour conference and considerably more in Court time although if we went to a Judicial Review as the Judge suggested the costs may outweigh the gains, thus it is potentially wise to make the matter self liquidating by taking the damages from the lesser case to pay the costs of the greater albeit the clear probability is that costs will be awarded in view of the extensive and irrefutable evidence held.
That the possibility of a Judicial Review is in no way harmed by current abeyisance EUkip will be in receipt of a letter concerning the first steps on Monday or Tuesday, which will leave them in no doubt that their position is parlous and perpetuation of their crano rectally retentive avoidance will harm their position yet further.
It is clear that EUkip is aware that it has created for itself problems beyond their wit and competence and is resorting in the short term to an attempt to discredit those it has created as enemies - this of course will prove massively damaging when the cases come to court.The unleashing of a series of naive kids and useful idiots masquerading with silly names will serve them ill as the linkage of their lies can be clearly established and no amount of further dishonest slurs can do other than exacerbate EUkip's already notable problems.