Latest news with #legalcosts
Telegraph
a day ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Undercover police inquiry set to be most expensive in history
The public inquiry into undercover policing is on course to become the most expensive in British legal history. Official figures obtained by The Telegraph have established that the cost of the decade-old inquiry could exceed £200 million. The figure would overtake the cost of the Bloody Sunday inquiry, which reached £191 million and would be more than five times the amount spent on the inquiry into the Manchester Arena terror attack. One policing chief described the time taken and spiralling costs as a 'national embarrassment'. Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary and a former policing minister, said the costs were 'out of control' and called for the inquiry to be rapidly wound up. One political source added: 'It has turned into a gravy train for lawyers.' The inquiry, which began on July 17 2015, has cost £102 million to date, while a further £68.6 million has been spent on dozens of experienced detectives, uniformed constables and staff. The 74 police officers and staff, which include a detective superintendent, detective chief inspectors, inspectors sergeants and constables, have been diverted to investigate the activities of undercover officers as far back as 1968, figures obtained under freedom of information laws reveal. The £68 million total police bill is the equivalent to employing 1,000 constables or policing a town the size of Bournemouth 24/7, according to this newspaper's analysis. With at least another two years to run, The Telegraph understands that the Home Office anticipates the costs of the inquiry are likely to hit between £130 million and £150 million on top of the £68.6 million for police investigators. The revelations come ahead of Rachel Reeves's spending review on Wednesday. Police chiefs have warned it could force them to deprioritise the investigation of other crimes if she fails to plug a £1.3 billion hole in their budgets. The inquiry was launched by Theresa May, the then home secretary, after a series of 'spy cop' scandals where undercover officers slept with women without disclosing their true identities, failed to reveal their roles in court cases and were involved in criminal acts. Martyn Underhill, a former Met detective and Dorset's first police and crime commissioner, said he had backed the need for an inquiry into activities that were a 'stain on policing', but he added: 'The time taken, and the spiralling costs, are now becoming a national embarrassment, akin to the Bloody Sunday inquiry. 'What is clear here is that the remit of the inquiry is too broad, and should have been limited to undercover cops establishing relationships on and off duty with targets, not a remit of all undercover policing. 'By the time the inquiry has reported to the Government, many of its findings will be out of date. This issue is now completely out of control, and UK Policing PLC has to carry some of that blame.' Mr Philp said: 'This public inquiry is totally out of control. It should not be taking more than 10 years and cost over £200 million. It is a total waste of money. 'It is also dragging police officers who served over 50 years ago through a legal process. It should be brought to a very rapid conclusion before any more time and money is wasted.' Endless legal tactics It is believed the Home Office originally envisaged the inquiry would last three years. It has had two judicial chairmen, Sir Christopher Pitchford, who stepped down as a result of ill health, followed by Sir John Mitting. Last week, Sir John announced that he will be stepping down next year after the publication of the second interim report. It is likely to cause further delays beyond the projected 2027 end date as a successor will have to be found. It is understood that ministers in the last government were told by the inquiry it could last until 2032, five years longer than the 12 years that it took the Bloody Sunday inquiry to complete its work. There are 249 core participants, all entitled to have reasonable legal costs paid. The issue of protecting the identities of undercover operatives has caused long delays and legal issues. The inquiry has released the cover names of 70 undercover officers from the Metropolitan Police's undercover unit the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS). The £170.6 million cost of the inquiry to date has put it on a par with the Grenfell Tower public inquiry, which cost £173.2 million. It is more than five times the Manchester Arena inquiry (£35.6 million), and 13 times the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war (£13.1 million). The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse (IICSA) cost £192.7 million. Those involved with campaigners targeted by undercover operatives said police must shoulder some of the blame for the lengthy delays and costs. They tried to 'keep things out of the public domain' for up to five years, said one, through 'endless' legal tactics and applications to the court to prevent officers being identified. Another insider questioned the decision to set up a public inquiry in the first place, pointing out that changes to police undercover practices were already underway and said the terms of reference and period of investigation for the inquiry had been set too wide.
Telegraph
4 days ago
- Business
- Telegraph
‘A loan to fund my divorce left me homeless and £300k in debt'
Shelley Kavanagh knew getting divorced would be expensive. But she never imagined it would leave her homeless and saddled with a six-figure debt. The 55-year-old mother-of-three went from living in a seven-bedroom house to struggling to rent a flat after taking out a loan to fund her legal costs. She said: 'By the time everything unravelled, the combined loan and legal costs had far exceeded my assets, leaving me financially ruined.' The Telegraph has spoken to several women who were advised by their solicitors to fund their divorces using huge loans that devastated their finances. The loans – provided by litigation funders – were borrowed against the marital home so they could only be repaid following the sale of the property. Until then interest piled up at a rate of 18pc. This eye-watering level of interest meant that by the time the women came to sell up, the debt had eroded the equity in their homes. Campaigners are now calling for tighter regulation of lenders trying to cash in on divorce. 'It had a direct impact on my children' Ms Kavanagh's ordeal began when she was introduced to Novitas, one of the best-known divorce lenders, in 2015 by her solicitors. A housewife at the time, she agreed to borrow £150,000 to finance her divorce. The initial interest rate was 18pc – adding £27,000 in the first year, not including other charges. By the time the divorce was over, the debt had ballooned to over £300,000. She said: 'My credit rating was destroyed, and I became homeless. This had a direct impact on my children, as my unstable housing situation meant overnight stays with me were nearly impossible. Even finding a rental property became a challenge, as landlords were reluctant to accept tenants with poor credit histories.' Ms Kavanagh, who now lives in Oxfordshire, had to move in with her father while she got back on her feet. She was only able to find accommodation after he lent her money to pay the rent in advance. She said: 'Without that support, the outcome would have been significantly different.' The Novitas loan was paid using the proceeds of the house sale, leaving Ms Kavanagh 'with very little remaining'. The lender agreed to a £50,000 reduction after she complained. But she still believes the company should not have lent to her in the first place. 'Targeted at the height of vulnerability' Launched in 2011, Novitas at one point described itself as the leading provider of loans for people going through divorce. It claimed to work with 900 law firms, according to a post on the platform Twitter, now X, from 2019. Documents show Novitas would carry out a credit check as part of an individual's application. It said it was 'unlikely' to lend if the applicant had a County Court Judgement (CCJ). Ms Kavanagh had a CCJ – yet she was lent the money anyway. She said: 'A CCJ is a clear warning sign of financial vulnerability, yet Novitas proceeded with the loan regardless. This suggests that they either failed to conduct proper credit checks or deliberately ignored red flags.' She said women like her had been presented with the loans while they were at 'the height of their vulnerability'. She added: 'We want justice for what we've been through.' 'My divorce debt snowballed to £700,000' The litigation funding industry has grown dramatically over the past decade, filling a vacuum left behind by cuts to legal aid. Lenders argue they give important financial backing to individuals pursuing fair divorce settlements. However, in recent years a number of borrowers have lodged complaints about litigation loans with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), some of which have been upheld. Another mother introduced to Novitas by her solicitor was Rosie Heys. In 2014, Ms Heys, 59, from Oxfordshire, agreed to borrow £100,000 to cover her divorce costs. Again, this loan, which carried an 18pc interest rate, was secured against her property. At the time, she only earned about £1,000 a month working as a freelance personal assistant – although the stress of the divorce meant she eventually lost the job. As the case dragged on, Ms Heys agreed to take out additional borrowing, taking her total debt to £230,000. She instructed a different solicitor and took out a personal loan with a lower interest rate from another provider. This was used to pay the new fees and the Novitas loan. She said: 'I couldn't see a way out. I was stuck in a house I couldn't sell, with a debt that was accruing at £600 a day. I just didn't know what to do.' It took Ms Heys a decade to sell the property, with £700,000 of the proceeds used to pay off the loan. Ms Heys complained to Novitas who agreed to refund her £7,000 in interest because it had failed to provide her with regular statements about her debt. However, it did not accept her other complaints and so Ms Heys approached the FOS, which concluded in 2023 that the loan was unaffordable and that Novitas had not carried out adequate affordability checks. It ordered Novitas to refund the interest and charges, which added up to £50,000 in total, but not the capital, as this had been used to cover the solicitors' fees. In a separate case, involving a woman who borrowed £45,000, the FOS went further and instructed Novitas to refund almost her entire debt. The lender was told to cap her liability at £1,745 as this was the amount the FOS decided she might reasonably have spent on mediation. 'I wish I'd walked away and let my husband take everything' Ms Heys and Ms Kavanagh have spoken to dozens of women who also took out litigation loans that significantly impacted their finances and mental health. One mother, who asked to remain anonymous, told The Telegraph she wished she had just walked away and left her ex-husband everything rather than get divorced because at least then she would not be in debt. Ms Heys said: 'Some people are so traumatised that they just can't handle it.' She said the debt had also had a profound impact on the children of the women affected, as many were now living in rental accommodation. 'Renting in this country is very precarious because people can give you notice and get you out in two months. And that's the situation most of these children have found themselves in.' Ms Heys and Ms Kavanagh want those affected to know they may be able to seek redress through the FOS. But they also want greater awareness of the risks of litigation loans for those going through a divorce. Former MP Seema Kennedy, of campaign group Fair Civil Justice, said: 'These appalling cases highlight the urgent need for reform. Vulnerable individuals going through divorce should not be exploited by litigation funders with clear conflicts of interest, racking up excessive fees that can reach hundreds of thousands of pounds. Without proper regulation, consumers are left dangerously exposed.' Litigation loans are regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. But they are also part of the broader third-party litigation funding industry, which is largely self-regulated. Other agreements are 'non-recourse', meaning the litigation funder only gets paid if the case is successful. The Civil Justice Council this week called for 'light-touch regulation' of litigation funding following a consultation. In a report, it said complaints about litigation loans with the FOS reinforced the need 'for effective financial services and legal services regulation' and highlighted the need for consumers to be 'fully informed' about the nature of this funding. Novitas was bought by Close Brothers in 2017 in a £31m deal. However, it ceased lending to new customers in 2021 and is now in the process of being wound down. The banking group had to set aside over £100m to cover its bad loans. In its 2022 accounts, Novitas earmarked £5.3m in redress for customers who took out loans to fund divorce and probate cases.
Irish Times
04-06-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Warring couple's estimated €500,000 ‘high-conflict' litigation costs is ‘cautionary tale', warns judge
A warring couple's 'high conflict' proceedings involving estimated legal costs of about €500,000 are 'a cautionary tale' about the price of family law litigation, a High Court judge has said. The €1.1 million value of the remaining assets of the marriage of less than five years puts the scale of the legal costs 'in context', Mr Justice John Jordan said. He made the comments when upholding the man's appeal against certain Circuit Court orders made in divorce proceedings. Orders requiring the man to pay the woman a €150,100 lump sum for spousal maintenance, €173,500 to achieve pension equalisation and €61,500 towards her legal fees were described as 'punitive' by Mr Justice Jordan. READ MORE It was a short marriage with few matrimonial assets generated during its existence, the judge said. Taking this into account, and that inheritances accounted for much of the husband's assets, the woman should have about 25 per cent of the available assets, meaning a total lump sum of €275,000, plus payment of her health insurance, the judge ruled. The man has valuable pensions, while the woman's are of nominal value, but that must be viewed in the context of the marriage's short duration, he said. The man has a reasonably good salary and, while the woman earns significantly less, her part-time earnings are reasonable and likely to increase, he said. The Circuit Court failed to properly take into account the man will separately pay €1,100 monthly maintenance, plus some other costs, for their child and had put €56,000 in a trust fund for the child, the judge noted. He set aside a safety order the Circuit Court granted to the woman against the man. He found she had not pressed that court for it and there was a lack of evidence of any violence, or threats of violence by the man. 'Simply to set necessary lines of demarcation,' the judge said he would make orders restraining the man from entering the woman's property. The dispute between the man and woman has been before the District Court, Circuit Court and High Court, he said. The woman initiated judicial separation proceedings and there were other proceedings related to access and custody. He was satisfied both sides contributed to the disagreements and the 'high conflict' nature of the litigation. To their mutual credit, against a 'difficult backdrop' and medical issues, their young child is doing well, the judge said. A summary of legal costs indicated the woman's costs were about €258,000, of which €44,000 was paid, while the man's were €212,000, most of which have been paid. He estimated accountants' fees at €20,000-€30,000. Both sides must negotiate their own fee payments, the judge said. Hers are likely to be much less than the 'aspirational' €258,000 referred to, he believed. It seemed the woman would probably have qualified for legal aid but she decided not to apply, apparently in the belief the service would have been inferior to that of private lawyers, the judge said. There was 'no reason' to doubt the quality of the legal aid service and nothing to suggest there would have been any greater delays if she was represented by the Legal Aid Board, he said. Her decision not to seek legal aid was 'somewhat irresponsible' when she clearly could not afford private representation and the total resources of the marriage 'were not great', he said. Considering this factor, alongside other reasons, the judge set aside an order requiring the man to pay €61,000 towards her legal fees.
The Guardian
02-06-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Bankruptcy notice lodged against John Pesutto after he fails to pay fellow Liberal Moira Deeming $2.3m
Lawyers for Victorian Liberal MP Moira Deeming have initiated bankruptcy proceedings against former state opposition leader John Pesutto after he failed to meet a deadline to pay her $2.3m in legal costs. The upper house MP's lawyers on Monday lodged a bankruptcy notice on Monday after Pesutto failed to pay the costs ordered by the federal court in May. The court in December found he repeatedly defamed Deeming by falsely implying she sympathised with neo-Nazis and white supremacists. The notice provides Pesutto with a further 21 days to pay the remaining amount, enter into a payment agreement or face bankruptcy. The deadline for Pesutto to pay the costs was Friday but sources close to the Hawthorn MP said he was he was unable to raise the full amount by that date, with about two-thirds still outstanding. Pesutto has already paid Deeming $300,000 in damages plus $15,000 in interest If he is bankrupted, it would disqualify him from being a member of parliament and trigger a byelection in his seat of Hawthorn, which the Liberal MP holds by a slim margin of 1.74%. Pesutto on Monday took to X to confirm the 'issuing of the bankruptcy notice'. 'I will be doing everything possible over the next 21 days to pay the amount ordered by the federal court,' Pesutto wrote. 'I will continue performing my work as the member for Hawthorn, and I reiterate my wish to do so for as long as the people of my electorate will have me.' When approached by Guardian Australia, Deeming sent a statement earlier provided to the Herald Sun. The upper house MP said issuing the bankruptcy notice was not a decision she took lightly 'nor with any sense of triumph'. 'My goal is simple, to ensure that I am reimbursed so that I can repay that loan as I promised I would,' Deeming said. 'The possibility of a costly by-election in the seat of Hawthorn is not something I welcome. But retain it or lose it, the greater threat to the Liberal party is not the pain and cost of pursuing justice, but the dishonour and shame of failing to uphold it.' 'No man is above the law.' On X, Deeming denied she was intentionally seeking to damage the Liberal party. 'If you interpret a politician being held to account as some kind of political or democratic disaster, maybe you are the problem - not me,' Deeming posted. In the event of Pesutto's bankruptcy, Deeming's lawyers have also indicated they will seek to recover costs from third parties – and will apply for subpoenas to compel him to disclose communications with his donors. Pesutto's situation has sparked discussions of a possible loan from the party's investment vehicle, the Cormack Foundation, which has been reluctant so far to provide financial support to the former leader. Former Liberal premier, Jeff Kennett, lambasted the party's administrative committee and the Cormack Foundation for failing to 'support its own'. Kennett said a loan from Cormack wasn't his preferred option, but it would at least prevent Pesutto's bankruptcy. 'My preference is to be generous. Even if they give him a loan, he will still be indebted for the rest of his life. They [Pesutto's family] don't deserve it,' he said. 'My preference is the organisations within the liberal party that have the capital - and substantial amounts of capital - said 'we may not agree with you but we are not going to put you and your family in a situation where you are potentially bankrupt.''
The Guardian
28-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Victorian Liberals prepare last-minute bid to bail out John Pesutto with loan to help pay $2.3m defamation costs
Victorian Liberal party officials are preparing a last minute proposal for the state division to loan former leader John Pesutto enough money to pay the $2.3m in legal costs he owes to Moira Deeming. The proposal, according to multiple Liberal sources, will need to be presented to the party's 19-member administrative wing in order to be approved. But so far, no meeting has been called to discuss the loan and its terms, which have not been finalised. The loan may be partly funded by the Cormack Foundation, the state party's multimillion-dollar investment vehicle, which has so far been reluctant to support Pesutto as it is not allowed to provide financial assistance to individuals. The proposal is expected to be discussed by senior members of the administrative wing at a regular meeting on Wednesday evening, according to one Liberal source, who expected this discussion would then lead to a broader meeting of all 19 members. Earlier this month, Pesutto was ordered to pay $2.3m of Deeming's legal costs after it was found he repeatedly defamed Deeming by falsely implying she sympathised with neo-Nazis and white supremacists in December. Sources close to Pesutto say the former opposition leader has so far raised roughly one-third of the costs order. Pesutto has already paid Deeming $300,000 in damages plus $15,000 in interest. The former Liberal leader's supporters have been privately lobbying donors for money and trying to raise cash through a GoFundMe page. So far, that page has generated $185,000. They remain hopeful a loan from the party may not be necessary. Deeming has flagged she intends to serve a bankruptcy notice on Friday if her costs remain outstanding, leaving Pesutto a further three weeks to pay. If he misses that deadline, Deeming's solicitor, Patrick George, has indicated they will seek to recover costs from third parties - and will apply for subpoenas to compel Pesutto to disclose communications with his donors. A letter from George seen by Guardian Australia indicates they would seek to recoup costs from former Liberal premiers Ted Baillieu, Denis Napthine and Jeff Kennett. The letter also mentions Charles Gillies, the former chair of the Liberal Party's fundraising arm Enterprise Victoria, Liberal MPs David Southwick and Georgie Crozier, former MP Margaret Fitzherbert, developer Jason Yeap and Pesutto's former staffer Xavier Boffa. 'We request that Mr Pesutto retain, and confirm he has retained, all records relating to these donations including, without being exhaustive, the agreement of these persons to donate to or fund his defence of the proceedings,' the letter said. The letter requested Pesutto retain 'all records relating to the information he provided to them about the proceedings'. Opposition leader, Brad Battin, faced increased pressure on Wednesday to publicly intervene to resolve the saga. 'Every conversation I have with Cormack or the party will remain confidential,' Battin said. He insisted the party room was united but urged MPs to 'stick on message'. Kennett, who is named in the letter and is a key supporter of Pesutto, told the ABC he was not concerned about it, but he reflected on the damage the saga was doing to the state division. 'I can't imagine what it's like to be in that party room. It is a cesspool,'' he told the ABC.
