Wirral Council paid Nigel Lawrence QC £27,185.90 to prosecute Meyer Group Limited for X-raying its employees

Wirral Council paid Nigel Lawrence QC £27,185.90 to prosecute Meyer Group Limited for X-raying its employees

Wirral Council paid Nigel Lawrence QC £27,185.90 to prosecute Meyer Group Limited for X-raying its employees

                                                                     

This invoice is for a successful criminal prosecution by Wirral Council of Meyer Group Limited in the Liverpool Crown Court. Meyer Group Limited pled guilty.

This case started in 2012 and ended in 2013. Known court dates at Liverpool Crown Court for this case are below:

30th October 2012 (preliminary hearing)
24th January 2013 (plea and case management)
26th April 2013 (for sentence)
4th July 2013 (for sentence) before His Honour Judge Morrow QC

Representing Wirral Council was a barrister called Nigel Lawrence QC of 7 Harrington Street Chambers, Liverpool.

This invoice is for the small sum of £27,185.90. The breakdown is:

A: Travelling expenses

Car parking (on the 24th January 2013) *note this was for the plea and case management hearing at Liverpool Crown Court* £7.00
VAT on car parking (£7 * 20%) £1.40

Total £8.40

B: Legal work

Work from 24th June 2012 to 10th July 2013 (129 hours 25 minutes @ £175/hour = £22,647.916 rounded up to £22,647.92)
VAT on work done: (£22,647.92 * 20% = £4,529.584 rounded down to £4,529.58)

Total: £27,177.50

Grand Total: A (£8.40) + B (£27,177.50) = £27,185.90

There’s a court report in the Liverpool Echo about this case with the headline Workers at Mersey firm exposed to potentially unsafe levels of radiation.

When Wirral Council supplied me with the invoice for £27,185.90 as part of the 2013/14 audit, they deliberately blacked out the name of the defendant Meyer Group Limited. I supply the original invoice and partially unredacted one below.

Wirral Council V Meyer Group Limited redacted invoice £27,185.90 Nigel Lawrence QC Liverpool Crown Court
Wirral Council V Meyer Group Limited redacted invoice £27,185.90 Nigel Lawrence QC Liverpool Crown Court
Wirral Council V Meyer Group Limited partially unredacted invoice £27,185.90 Nigel Lawrence QC Liverpool Crown Court
Wirral Council V Meyer Group Limited partially unredacted invoice £27,185.90 Nigel Lawrence QC Liverpool Crown Court

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

High Court of Justice report The Queen on the application of John Michael Brace v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

CO/7971/2012

In the High Court of Justice

Queen’s Bench Division

Administrative Court sitting in Manchester

In the matter of an application for Judicial Review

            The Queen on the application of

            JOHN MICHAEL BRACE

            versus

            WIRRAL METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

            Application for permission to apply for Judicial Review

            NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (CPR Part 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

Order by his Honour Judge Waksman QC sitting as a High Court Judge

Permission is hereby refused.

Observations:

  1. The correct way for the Claimant to have proceeded on the basis of his complaint about other candidates’ non-compliance with s79 LGA 2000* was to have made an election petition within 21 days which he did not do and which, if he had, would have provided a safeguard in the form of provision for security of costs.

     

  2. Moreover this claim is out of time not only because just outside 3 months but because it was not made promptly given that the Claimant made the point before the challenged election took place. It is particularly important that if there is a JR claim at all in respect of such matters (see paragraph 1 above) that it is made very speedily so as to avoid any prejudice and costs incurred by the election having taken place. No extension is justified simply because the Claimant broke his arm.

     

  3. Accordingly, no arguable basis for JR.

     

Signed: D. ???????? Date: 23 August 2012

Where permission to apply has been granted, claimants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the defendant’s evidence.

—————————————————————————————————————————-

Sent/Handed to the claimant, defendant and any interested party/ the claimant’s, defendant’s and any interested party’s solicitors on (date):

Solicitors:

Ref No.

Notes for the Claimant

(1)       Where the Judge has refused permission a claimant or his solicitor may request the decision to be reconsidered at a hearing by completing and returning form 86B within 7 days of the service upon him of this notice.

(2)       If permission has been granted the claimant or his solicitor must within 7 days of the service upon him of this notice, lodge a further fee of £180.00 or a Fees exemption certificate if appropriate, to continue the proceedings. Failure to pay the fee or lodge a certificate within the specified period may result in the claim being struck out.

Notes to Defendants and Interested Parties

(1)       Where permission has been granted, a defendant and any other person served with the claim form who wishes to contest the claim or support it on additional grounds must file and serve –

(a) detailed grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds; and

(b) any written evidence,

within 35 days after service of the order giving permission. 

*Note although the judgement reads s.79 LGA 2000, I have linked to s.79 LGA 1972 as it appears to be an error in this judgement.

Privacy Preference Center

Necessary

Advertising

Analytics

Other