Latest news with #legalfees
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Siouxsie Wiles 'absolutely delighted' by Employment Court ruling
Photo: RNZ Associate professor Siouxsie Wiles says she's "absolutely delighted" by a ruling which will see Auckland University pay her $205,059.94. towards her legal fees. It comes after the Employment Court ruled last year that the university breached its obligations to protect Wiles as harassment intensified during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. However, it did not find the university had breached Wiles' academic freedom, or claims related to Te Tiriti. Wiles told Morning Report the costs were meant to be a negotiation with the university "and it's really frustrating that they didn't do that negotiation in a way that's really fair, instead they threatened to come after me for something like $575,000 of their cost". She had offered to accept less a year ago than what the university now has to pay, she said. "It's very disappointing that we had to actually go back to the judge to deal with this." Wiles said she has spent about $600,000 on legal fees in total, including GST and the interest she will pay on bank loans. She spent $349,450.67 to fight her case last year, she earlier said. "This has been going on a long time and access to justice is very very expensive." She said it was "astonishing" that the university chose to fight the case and said it spent well over $1 million on doing so. Wiles said she was still subject to harassment but "it's not as bad as it used to be". "There are people who just won't let this go, they've really almost build a whole identity around the abuse and harassment that they are making out on other people." Wiles said she did not have any regrets. "We saved thousands of lives, people need to remember that, that our early experience of the pandemic was really really different than other countries. You know, New York was... digging mass graves... we saved lots and lots of lives and I don't think you can regret that." In a statement, Auckland University said the ruling about costs concluded the legal action and followed the Court of Appeal's recent decision to decline Wiles' application to appeal aspects of the Employment Court decision.
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Fightback against hated LTN that made Labour-run council £1million in fines as it is ordered by High Court to scrap 'unlawful' low-traffic neighbourhood in first case of its kind
A Labour run-council has been ordered by the High Court to scrap a hated LTN which earned £1million in fines. An 'unlawful' low-traffic neighbourhood in West Dulwich, south London will become the first in the UK to be axed after a judge rejected an appeal from Lambeth council. The council will now have to pay out £35,000 in legal fees to the West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG), which brought the case, but campaigners are calling for this to be increased to include the £1,080,580 taken in penalties. Nonetheless, the body welcomed the decision to close the LTN which they argued had increased pollution and traffic on bordering roads. A spokesman for WDAG said: 'This ruling is definitive – the LTN was unlawful. The council has lost, has been denied permission to appeal, and must now face the consequences of what that means. 'At the top of that list is the £1 million in fines it issued while the unlawful scheme was in place. 'We now call on Lambeth Council to clarify whether it will refund those fines. This is not just about legality – it's about fairness and public trust. If the law was broken, the money should be paid back.' The group has also pleaded with the council to avoid taking the case any further via another appeal, adding that it would waste yet more public funds. The 'unlawful' low-traffic neighbourhood, pictured, in West Dulwich, south London will become the first in the UK to be axed They said: 'Doing so would further waste taxpayers' money and signal that its priority is protecting revenue, not engaging with the community it serves. 'Let's be clear: this case should never have gone to court. It could have been resolved through proper, respectful dialogue. Instead, chose to defend litigation over listening – and the public has paid for it. 'It's a wake-up call to councils everywhere: to not impose blanket schemes ignoring genuine concerns and issues, and to work with your communities. 'We again invite Lambeth to return to the table and help co-create fairer, smarter approaches to car use, pollution, road safety, and sustainable travel – with data, community support, and clear success measures at the heart of every decision.' Mr Justice Smith warned council bosses not to 'revoke' the LTN, which was introduced last year, instead of it being 'quashed' by a court ruling. He wrote: 'Revoking the orders after I have made a finding of unlawfulness leaves the same impression as would an attempt to resign immediately after one has been fired.' The judge also ordered the council to implement the ruling immediately, calling on them not to defer removing the LTN, as it had 'known of the need to instruct these works to take place since May 9' when it initially lost the High Court case. He rejected the local authority's bid to avoid paying WDAG's legal costs on the grounds that they had won only one of three legal challenges, branding the attempt 'misconceived' due to the fact that residents had been 'wholly successful'. Mr Justice Smith added: 'Here the claimant came to court seeking a quashing of the [traffic] orders. It has gone away having achieved that objective. It has therefore been completely successful. 'The fact that the claimant has succeeded in only one of its three grounds of claim does not alter the fact that it has been wholly successful in its aims.' In his May ruling, he found Lambeth council guilty of a 'serious falling' following its deicision to ignore an 'impressive' report suggesting street closures could cause a spike in pollution and congestion in the surrounding area. Mr Justice Smith also described a council document ignoring 'hostility' expressed towards the LTN in a public consultation as a 'masterclass in selective partial reporting'. It emerged in February that staff working for the local authority had been handed a 'wellbeing day' off having been 'left in tears' in the wake of residents making their 'anger' known at a 2023 meeting at West Norwood Library. The barrister for Lambeth Council, Heather Sargeant, wrote that the meeting brought councillors to tears and forced council staff to take a lunch break to 'get away' from the hostility from angry residents. She wrote: 'The experience of officers attending the event for the council (on a Saturday) was so negative that the then head of transport strategy and programmes offered them a day of wellbeing leave.' The opponents to the LTN criticised the council for a lack of public consultation and argued this made the proposal unlawful. Lambeth council spokesman said: 'We implemented the West Dulwich street improvements to reduce road danger and create a safer and healthier neighbourhood. 'We remain committed to delivering our programme to reduce road danger for those most at-risk and make our streets calmer, more community-friendly places. 'The High Court has ordered the removal of West Dulwich street improvements. No further fines will be issued, and we are removing the scheme as soon as it can be done safely.' The spokesman did not acknowledge WDAG's demands for more than £1m in fines to be reimbursed.
Telegraph
13 hours ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Labour council forced to axe LTN that raked in £1m
A Labour council has been ordered to immediately scrap an 'unlawful' low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN) after losing a High Court battle. It comes after Mr Justice Smith ruled in May that Lambeth council had ignored residents' 'legitimate concerns' about the zone in West Dulwich, south London. The judge has now rejected an appeal by the authority against the ruling, while ordering the scheme to be axed and the council to pay £35,000 in legal fees. It is the first time that an LTN, a zone where traffic is restricted in residential roads and fines are issued to unauthorised vehicles that enter the area, has been shut down by the courts. The West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG), which brought the case after claiming the street closures had increased traffic and pollution on roads bordering the zone, welcomed the ruling and called for the council to repay the £1,080,580 in fines raised through the scheme. The campaigners also said it set 'a powerful precedent' for residents locked in similar battles nationwide. A WDAG spokesman said: 'This ruling is definitive – the LTN was unlawful. The council has lost, has been denied permission to appeal, and must now face the consequences of what that means. 'At the top of that list is the £1 million in fines it issued while the unlawful scheme was in place. 'We now call on Lambeth Council to clarify whether it will refund those fines. This is not just about legality – it's about fairness and public trust. If the law was broken, the money should be paid back.' The group also urged the council not to squander any more public funds by pursuing the case further at the Court of Appeal. 'Doing so would further waste taxpayers' money and signal that its priority is protecting revenue, not engaging with the community it serves,' they added. 'Let's be clear: this case should never have gone to court. It could have been resolved through proper, respectful dialogue. Instead, Lambeth chose to defend litigation over listening – and the public has paid for it.' 'Wake-up call to councils everywhere' The WDAG statement added: 'It's a wake-up call to councils everywhere: to not impose blanket schemes ignoring genuine concerns and issues, and to work with your communities. 'We again invite Lambeth to return to the table and help co-create fairer, smarter approaches to car use, pollution, road safety, and sustainable travel – with data, community support, and clear success measures at the heart of every decision.' In a thinly veiled criticism of town hall bosses, Mr Justice Smith said in his ruling that allowing the council to 'revoke' the LTN rather than having it 'quashed' by a court ruling would fail to properly 'reflect the reality' of the battle waged by local campaigners. He wrote: 'Revoking the orders after I have made a finding of unlawfulness leaves the same impression as would an attempt to resign immediately after one has been fired.' The judge also rejected the council's attempt to defer scrapping the LTN because the local authority had 'known of the need to instruct these works to take place since May 9' when it lost the High Court case. He said an attempt by Lambeth to avoid paying all of WDAG's legal costs because the campaigners only won one of the three legal challenges was 'misconceived' because the residents had been 'wholly successful.' Legal battle 'completely successful' Mr Justice Smith wrote: 'Here the claimant came to court seeking a quashing of the [traffic] orders. It has gone away having achieved that objective. It has therefore been completely successful. 'The fact that the claimant has succeeded in only one of its three grounds of claim does not alter the fact that it has been wholly successful in its aims.' In his initial ruling in May, Mr Justice Smith found that the council was guilty of a 'serious failing' after it ignored an 'impressive' report which warned that the street closures could lead to increased congestion and pollution elsewhere in the borough.
Free Malaysia Today
2 days ago
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
Bersatu didn't pay bureau chiefs, Muhyiddin's ex-aide tells court
Marzuki Mohamad, a former principal private secretary to party president Muhyiddin Yassin, said no payments were made to lawyer Haniff Khatri Abdulla when he headed Bersatu's legal and constitutional bureau in the party's early years. (Facebook pic) KUALA LUMPUR : Bersatu did not pay individuals who led its internal bureaus, including its former legal head Haniff Khatri Abdulla, the High Court heard today. Marzuki Mohamad, a former principal private secretary to party president Muhyiddin Yassin, said no payments were made to Haniff during the time he headed Bersatu's legal and constitutional bureau in the party's early years because that was the practice then. 'Two other lawyers also offered their services voluntarily. It was standard practice not to offer remuneration,' said Marzuki, who now lectures at a university. He was testifying in a lawsuit filed by Haniff in 2021 to claim RM12.5 million in legal fees from Bersatu. Haniff also named Muhyiddin, deputy president Hamzah Zainudin and treasurer Salleh Bajuri as co-defendants. Haniff alleged that he had issued multiple invoices between January and March 2021, but received no response. Bersatu, in its defence, claimed that his services from 2016 to 2020 were offered pro bono. Marzuki also told the court he had drafted the party's constitution and had sought Haniff's feedback, but claimed Haniff never responded. Asked by Haniff's lawyer Nizamuddin Hamid whether he knew Haniff was never a party member, Marzuki said he never asked. When questioned about Haniff's invoices and reminders, Marzuki said he had not seen them and only learnt of the lawsuit through media reports. Justice Akhtar Tahir fixed Aug 25 for a decision after Bersatu's lawyer Chetan Jethwani confirmed that the defence had closed its case.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Karen Read sells home and taps retirement fund to pay mounting legal bills in murder retrial
As murder defendant Karen Read rounds the corner on the halfway point of her second trial, the crippling weight of unpaid legal bills could be alleviated by an unlikely source: online crowdfunding. Months before her retrial was set to begin, Read told Vanity Fair she owes her defense team over $5 million in legal fees – a total that is likely growing with the addition of two new attorneys. "Other than feeling wrongfully persecuted and prosecuted, I feel incredibly violated," Read said in the Vanity Fair interview, adding, "If I can get the entire truth of this case out in the public forum, that, to me, is priceless." Karen Read Judge Grants Defense Video Access, Allows Dog Bite Experts – With Limits Read pleaded not guilty and is facing the possibility of life in prison for the alleged murder of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe. She is accused of ramming O'Keefe with her vehicle during a drunken argument before leaving him to freeze to death in the front yard of a fellow police officer's home in the early morning hours of Jan. 29, 2022. Read's defense team did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment. Read On The Fox News App Last year, Norfolk County Superior Court Judge Beverly Cannone declared a mistrial after the jury was unable to reach a verdict, setting the stage for a costly redo for Read. Karen Read Appeals Double Jeopardy Ruling To Us Supreme Court Since her first trial, Read's defense team has introduced two new players, with attorneys Robert Alessi and Victoria George joining Alan Jackson, David Yannetti and Elizabeth Little. To help subsidize her expenses, Read reportedly sold her Mansfield home for $810,000 in November 2024 and is living off of her 401(k) retirement fund after losing her jobs as a Bentley University finance professor and Fidelity Investments equities analyst following her arrest. In addition to turning to her equity, numerous crowdfunding sites have been kick-started to help Read chip away at her legal fees – a common tactic used in high-profile court cases where bills could rise into the seven figures. Medical Examiner Details Skull Fractures In Karen Read Murder Trial Testimony "There are many examples of high-profile defendants paying out-of-pocket for their defense," criminal defense attorney Andrew Stoltmann told Fox News Digital. "O.J. Simpson is the classic example. But it is surprising when high-profile, non-wealthy individuals pay out-of-pocket for their entire defense." A Justice for Karen Read legal defense fund, organized by Werksman Jackson & Quinn LLP, is closing in on $1 million raised, with donations continuing to pour in as Read's second trial wraps up its fourth week. "Keep fighting," one anonymous donor wrote. "I believe in Karen's innocence and grateful she has an amazing team defending her." Karen Read Trial: Crime Lab Expert Testifies Blood Evidence Was Never Tested Werksman Jackson & Quinn did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment. Additionally, the Free Karen Read Movement has launched a website selling sweatshirts, T-shirts and other apparel in support of Read, while advocating for her innocence. Earlier this month, supporters hosted a ticketed dinner party in a nearby town to raise money for Read. Seats were priced at $100 and included a live DJ, raffle and cash bar. GET REAL-TIME UPDATES DIRECTLY ON THE True Crime Hub The event organizers did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment. While turning to public methods as a way to bankroll legal funds increases, experts caution the charity could come with strings attached. "A third-party funding source is both a blessing and a curse," Stoltmann said. "They can provide necessary funds to put on a top-flight defense, but they also tend to have a disproportionate amount of sway with the attorneys since the bills are being paid by the third party. It's an ethical quagmire for the attorneys on cases." Karen Read's Defense Opens Door For Special Prosecutor To Bring In New Evidence: Court Docs Read's defense team did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment on whether she plans to accept the funds. In light of the hefty price tag for legal representation, it is not uncommon for attorneys to take on high-profile cases for a reduced rate in exchange for publicity. SIGN UP TO GET True Crime Newsletter "Many criminal defense lawyers will take a case pro bono or at a severely discounted rate if it's a high-profile case and there's a great deal of news and television coverage," Stoltmann told Fox News Digital. "This often leads to a tsunami of new clients coming in the door for years after the trial takes place. This might be what's happening in Karen Read's case." While Read's fate remains in the hands of the jury, her chance to maintain her freedom – and clear her name – continues to come at an incredibly high cost. "I'm not backing down now," Read told Vanity Fair. "As scary as a potential conviction is, I will go to jail for something I didn't do before I plea out. I will never give them that win."Original article source: Karen Read sells home and taps retirement fund to pay mounting legal bills in murder retrial
