Tina Rothery with supporters at a previous court appearance in Blackpool
The shale gas company, Cuadrilla, has been accused of an “aggressive and sustained” pursuit of court costs of more than £55,000 against the leading anti-fracking campaigner, Tina Rothery.
Lawyers for Cuadrilla have accused Ms Rothery of “persisting in inaccurately portraying” the legal process.
A vocal opponent of Cuadrilla’s activities in Lancashire, Ms Rothery faces going to prison this week for contempt of court following a long-running and complicated legal dispute with the company.
Her solicitor, Paul Ridge, of Bindmans, said:
“I have never seen a company behave as aggressively and for such a sustained period towards a single protestor on the matter of costs as in this case by Cuadrilla.”
In correspondence to Cuadrilla’s lawyers, Eversheds, he said:
“The steps now being taken to seek payment have been started by your client and it would be possible for them to stop the action by confirming that they no longer seek costs from Ms Rothery and regard this matter as at an end.
“It is hard to see why this enforcement action was started by Cuadrilla (at some expense) and is continuing. In my experience this is out of line with other companies that seek injunctions against protestors.”
Mr Ridge said Cuadrilla knew that Ms Rothery could not pay the costs, adding:
“It is made all the more oppressive when they know that there is nothing to be gained.”
Cuadrilla’s response
Cuadrilla has argued that the outcome now rested with the courts because Ms Rothery had refused to provide details of her finances. But Mr Ridge that if Cuadrilla dropped the case then the court would no longer seek the information.
In a reply to Mr Ridge, Julie Dilcock, of Eversheds, said:
“Your email below does not accurately portray the process in which Ms Rothery is currently involved and Ms Rothery has herself persisted in inaccurately portraying the process.
Ms Dilcock said:
“At no point has the Court ordered her to confirm that she will or will not in fact pay the costs she was ordered to pay in 2014. To comply with the Court’s order and purge her contempt, all she is required to do is answer the questionnaire.
“If Ms Rothery wishes to continue to disobey the Order of the Court and refuse to answer the questions that the Court has ordered her to answer (and which it appears from your correspondence that she has no objection to answering), that is a matter for her and no doubt the Court will deal with her continued contempt in accordance with CPR 71 [regulations]
“The Court has warned Ms Rothery of the consequences of her refusal to answer the Court’s questions and I have no doubt that the District Judge will again issue that warning to her on Friday.”
Full copies of correspondence from Paul Ridge and Julie Dilcock
Open letter to Francis Egan
The call for Cuadrilla to drop the case has been repeated in an open letter to the company’s chief executive, Francis Egan, by Ms Rothery’s supporters. The signatories included the actor Emma Thompson, designer Vivienne Westwood, filmmaker Josh Fox, senior Green Party politicians, union leaders and campaigners from environmental groups. (See the end of this post for the full list).
Supporter Emma Thompson at an anti-fracking “Bake-off” Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road site
They told Mr Egan the decision to pursue Ms Rothery “looks like a deliberate strategy to deter other protesters”.
They wrote:
“Tina is an ordinary citizen seeking to exercise her right of protest against an industry which, according to Government opinion polls, is more unpopular than ever because of the risks it poses to our health, to our local and global environment and to our communities.
“We urge you to drop Tina’s case, allow peaceful protest and halt the drilling – for all our futures.”
Friday court hearing
Ms Rothery has been ordered to appear in court in Preston on Friday lunchtime. If, as expected, she again refuses to give the court financial information, she could be sent to Styall Prison in Cheshire for two weeks.
The case dates back to August 2014 when anti-fracking campaigners, including a group called the Lancashire Nanas, occupied a field off Preston New Road at Little Plumpton near Blackpool.
The field was near where Cuadrilla had applied for planning permission a few months earlier to drill, frack and test for shale gas.
Following the occupation, two Cuadrilla companies and a group of landowners asked the High Court for a possession order that would allow them to evict the campaigners. They also sought an injunction to prevent access by members of 17 national and local anti-fracking groups to several other sites in the area.
The campaigners left the field before the eviction date. But at a High Court hearing in Manchester, Ms Rothery asked for an adjournment to allow time to consider the case for the injunction. She was the only named defendant.
When the case returned to court in October 2014, Ms Rothery offered no evidence. The judge ordered her to pay part of Cuadrilla’s costs for the extra court time.
The costs were set at £51,594.53. In January 2015, Ms Rothery offered £500, which Cuadrilla’s lawyers, Eversheds, rejected.
Ms Rothery continued to refuse to pay and in June 2016 the total had risen, with interest at 8%, to £55,342.37.
Case “has nothing to do with justice”
At a hearing at Blackpool Law Courts, she refused to give information under oath about her finances. She told a court official:
“I have huge admiration for a system of justice that is fair but I feel in this case that our law courts are not being used to seek justice but instead being applied like a weapon and a threat against peaceful protest.
“The fact that Cuadrilla has the finances, power and vindictiveness to pursue this through our courts is an abuse of one of the most valued aspects of our democracy.
“So please accept my apologies if this seems rude but as this case has nothing to do whatsoever with justice, I will not be complying with any requests for information or payment.”
She was judged to be in contempt of court and now has one more opportunity to give the court the information it asked for.
Supporters are expected to gather outside the court in Preston on Friday when the case is heard.
Full list of signatories to the open letter
Emma Thompson
Vivienne Westwood
Josh Fox, Filmmaker
Raoul Martinez, Artist, writer, filmmaker
Francesca Martinez, Comedian
Anthony Tombling, Filmmaker
Suzanne Jeffery, Campaign against Climate Change
Donna Hume, Friends of the Earth
John Sauven, Greenpeace
Ellie Groves, Reclaim the Power
Danielle Paffard, 350.org
Nick Dearden, Global Justice Now
Caroline Lucas, Green Party
Jonathan Bartley, Green Party
Natalie Bennett, Green Party
Manuel Cortes, TSSA union
Chris Baugh, PCS union
Matt Wrack, FBU union
Tony Kearns, Communication Workers Union
Ian Hodson, Bakers, Food & Allied Workers union
Graham Petersen, Greener Jobs Alliance
Updated at 10.31 on 8/12/2016 to include response from Cuadrilla provided this morning
Categories: Legal
DRILL OR DROP? 
It was a comment general. . But I do make reference to the HH crew who put themselves and others in danger protesting day after day. Did they all put two weeks holiday in from work. My own personal opinion is no probably not, causing trouble without substance. Making applications take longer. I am from a mining village so I would have no problem with oil mining. We need oil FACT.
the frackers are probably happy to have delays, it gives them more time to entice investors into the great fracking hoax
Trespass or obstruction of the highway around these sites will result in someone getting killed eventually if the law is not upheld. They are not playgrounds for uniformed novices to invade, who, strangely, continuously seek to claim the lawful occupants are conducting dangerous operations.
If you use the law to repeatedly try and further your agenda just remember, it is not a one way street.
Martin, you are more likely to ‘get killed’ crossing the street. Protesters manage the risk, are well organised and peaceful.
Well, this is enlightening, what can i say?
if anyone was ever in any doubt as to whether these fracking bullies could ever be relied upon to produce anything but intimidation rough shod frack boot pollution and subjugation, you only have to read this martyn collyer…….what ever it is…….i dont know what to call it….a threat? a fascist agenda? it beggars belief what mind set this betrays? “Trespass or obstruction of the highway around these sites will result in someone getting killed eventually if the law is not upheld” Are you actually threatening protesters?
The law IS being upheld, it protects legal protest, no damage is done no reparation can be sought no loss has been suffered,
It was Cuadrilla who bought the lawsuit, they must pay for it. This is an Unbelievable response!! You illustrate exactly what your industries attitude has shown all over the world, viscous litigious and contemptible threatening behaviour.
“If you use the law to repeatedly try and further your agenda just remember, it is not a one way street.” dont you see that applies to you and your industry above all, first and foremost since it is you who created this situation in the first place.
I think your one way street is a terminal journey up a frack polluted creek without a paddle, or even a canoe.
Do we really want attitudes like this to rule with their black twisted ironic fist in our communities and countryside?
Martin Collyer. You say, “Tresspass or obstruction of the highway around these sites will result in someone getting killed eventually.” Sadly, ‘someone getting killed eventually’ is not something that concerns Cuadrilla or Secretary of State, Sajid Javid. Cuadrilla’s application to frack at Roseacre Wood was refused on highway safety grounds by Lancashire County Council Highways Department, Lancashire County Council Planning Department and democratically elected Lancashire County Councillors despite the Council falling over backwards to give Cuadrilla several attempts at coming up with a suitable traffic plan. Cuadrilla appealed this decision and the Planning Inspector, Wendy McKay, after listening to five and a half weeks of evidence and personally visiting the site dismissed the Roseacre Wood appeal on highway grounds. In her own words–
–
12.860. Since the proposed development would be neither safe nor sustainable, it would not have the support of the Written Ministerial Statement. The national need for shale gas exploration cannot therefore be pleaded in support of this appeal. Even if it was appropriate to take that factor into account I believe that the need to ensure the safety of members of the public is paramount and would strongly outweigh that Important consideration
12.862. I conclude that all other material considerations are strongly outweighed by the harm that would result to highway safety. Given the conflict in this respect with the Development Plan and the relevant National Policy, Appeal C (Roseacre Wood) should be dismissed.
Despite this crystal clear, adamant refusal of permission for Roseacre Wood, which anyone who knows the area knows is totally unsuitable to fracking traffic, Sajid Javid is refusing to accept this and has said he is ‘minded to allow’ Roseacre Wood and is giving Cuadrilla another chance to come up with yet another transport plan (this would be their fourth try to achieve the impossible.) Sajid Javid also says he is to re-open the Inquiry but will be appointing a different planning inspector because Ms McKay ‘has made up her mind.’
In effect he’s saying, Ms McKay, who has listened to weeks of evidence and witnessed the impossible highway conditions at Roseacre Wood, is NOT willing to be leaned on by the government so the government will be appointing someone who they hope may be more amenable. Let’s just hope that any planning inspector appointed values his or her professional integrity more than Mr Javid or Cuadrilla do.
Crystal clear. Well reported Thank You Pauline. Indeed it is the tactics of central government that must be seen, and is definitely more our responsibility to counter, even than the industry which is of course seeking to perpetuate itself. Also looking at how legislation has been amended by government to try and enable fracking. The local Councillors whom are independent enough to stand up to central government when assessing drill permits are the backbone of any possibility of so called democracy (Greek, peoplepower)not further collapsing into tyranny, as Plato famously observed it would. And of course the Courts must operate impartially, but how can they if the thrust of their operating at all is a huge economic threat for people to make challenges under. Unless of course people are willing to risk to ‘do time’ which might be preferable over giving all into the hands of Frankenstein’s monster….But who is operating the prisons? A private company? etc. So whom is safe? To seek to participate in the determination of how we unfold our lives here..? Independent Legal System. Independent economic activity. Free spiritual/intellectual life.. How do we get a grip of our own legislation and Acts ? Is Zac Goldsmiths becoming an Independent a move away from tyranny?
Yes, Sherwulfe, and even more likely to get killed in Iraq, but I don’t think that is the point, is it? In this case, it is up to the law to manage the risks as well.
I have no clue as to how this will finally pan out, but if Cuadrilla and the tax payer swallow the costs this time, next time there will be a greater incentive to push the boundaries further and this will end in more than financial pain.
Your last sentence may give you satisfaction but is simply not factual. Your definitions are probably different to mine.
‘Yes, Sherwulfe, and even more likely to get killed in Iraq, but I don’t think that is the point, is it?’ so what is your point?
‘Protesters manage the risk, are well organised and peaceful.’ ask the organisers, don’t take my word for it.
Have you noticed how desperate these PF posts are to squat all over this issue? The posts are becoming increasingly unstable and threatening? There are genuine nerves being touched here that they cant bear to see raised (edited by moderator) The more desperate and abusive they get, the more we see how bankrupt is their cause, their methodology and their practice.
A PR disaster if ever i saw one.
Local democracy is great, and I support it. BUT decisions have to be made within the same legal and planning framework as laid down nationally. I have experienced myself how local councillors make decisions outside of such framework, they are warned of the fact that such decisions can not be sustained on appeal, but still go ahead and are overturned, but, hey ho, it is the tax payer who pays, so who cares? Local democracy is not “home rule” per parish.
See the Welsh are now flinging £8m into Port Talbot to help reduce energy costs. Only tax payers money, lets still ban fracking, eh? Ineos spent hundreds of millions £s on ships to keep Grangemouth jobs, so what’s the difference? Just someone else paying again.
A post on here about how dangerous it is for me crossing the street, I could be run over. Then, the speeding motorist could be prosecuted. But, if I was a “protester” climbing on a lorry to stop it moving along the Queens highway and I fell under the wheels then it would be the fault of the company who had hired the lorry and they should pay out? And the fact that such company did not stop the lorries but took legal steps to avoid such happening is a PR problem? What a strange world.
Almost as strange as farmer friends who have religiously protected wild animals, such as bats, on their farms from grandfather to current generation and now say, “this is a nonsense” (polite version) , “I shall throw up a number of bat mincers because the gullible public will pay me a fortune for doing so, and yet will chatter away over their dinner parties where they have paid more for their bottled water than they will pay me for the milk I spend 365 days a year working all hours to produce, but are saintly for protesting against fracking, so why should I sacrifice my future for their “environment”? I will just sacrifice my environment for them and the money their gravy train will provide even if my family for generations have been protecting the environment we shall now have to be bat mincers” Or, another farmer a few miles from me, now covering good farming land with solar panels (made in China, with vast amounts of polluting,coal fired energy to produce them). He stopped his dairy a few years ago. They will be smashed to pieces almost as soon as they are in place, (because local democracy could not manage unsocial elements) but, hey ho, the tax payer funds the bill.
fair food for thought thanks.
Martin Collyer. Your comment that planning decisions have to be made within the same legal and planning framework as laid down nationally is correct. However, as I’ve demonstrated above, regarding highway safety, Wendy McKay the planning inspector at the Cuadrilla Public Inquiry determined that ‘ since the proposed development for Roseacre Wood would be neither safe nor sustainable it would not have the support of the Written Ministerial Statement.’ She also said ‘ Given the conflict in this respect with the Development Plan and the relevant National Policy (NPPF), the Appeal should be dismissed.
She clearly states that the Appeal for the Roseacre Wood site does not meet the requirements of the National Policy or the Written Ministerial Statement. And yet the SOS, Sajid Javid is still ‘minded’ to defy the government’s own ‘legal and planning framework as laid down nationally’ by giving Cuadrilla yet another go, this time with a planning inspector of his choosing, because Ms McKay is not willing to put the lives of the local public at risk to suit the government and Cuadrilla’s agenda. The government themselves are the ones not following the legal and planning framework as laid down nationally.
Furthermore, the government have also shown they are quite willing to change laws, environmental restrictions and safety rules to accommodate the oil and gas industry. As George Osborne famously said “We must give Cuadrilla their ‘asks’.” The Written Ministerial Statement, which greatly favoured the industry was not issued until September 2015, three months after Lancashire County Council refused Cuadrilla’s plans, but great weight was given to it at the Public Inquiry.
How can the public have any trust or confidence in a government and industry that is so determined to push fracking onto an unwilling public that they think nothing of changing the goal posts to suit themselves, ignoring any opposition whether from the public or scientific experts?
This is why people like Tina Louise Rothery are making a stand against this destructive industry. It’s not simply fracking that is the problem but the increasingly dictatorial attitude of the government.
Martin.
‘A post on here about how dangerous it is for me crossing the street’ ….
was actually ‘Martin, you are more likely to ‘get killed’ crossing the street. Protesters manage the risk, are well organised and peaceful.’
this post was in response to your post ‘Trespass or obstruction of the highway around these sites will result in someone getting killed eventually if the law is not upheld’
All protesters are free to make their own decisions as to how they conduct themselves. Through history individuals have chosen their own, sometimes extreme, paths; Suffragette Emily Davison for example.
I’m sure we are in agreement here that it is best to demonstrate peacefully and safely, tea and cakes at the Nana’s table works for me….
And still the PF legions come pouring out of the woodwork? This must be a really big issue for all these to attempt to drown out these posts in pretend self righteous rhetoric? All against one lady standing up for everyone who sees the dangers of this invasion of our countryside.
Amongst all this furor, the most remarkable event happened at Standing Rock
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j28i9JXrjj4
We do not own the land, the land owns us.
Do you think it’s right to obey the law whatever the law is? Is there anything you wouldn’t obey if it were made law? Do you think women shouldn’t be allowed to vote? Do you think apartheid is right?
Why? When? Where? How? Which? Who?
Why do you ask?
When does it refer to?
Where does it pertain?
How is it served?
Which system?
Why are you avoiding the question?
When will you answer a straight question?
Where is your question leading?
How is it you do not know
Which situation do you mean?
Who does it refer to?
All Ms. Rothery has to do is turn up in court and fill out a questionnaire regarding her finances. If she does that, she’s no longer in contempt of court, it’s that simple. If she has no assets of any value then Cuadrilla won’t bother to pursue her and even if they tried, I doubt there’s a judge in the land who wouldn’t throw out the claim. You can’t get blood from a stone. The fact that she won’t fill out the questionnaire suggests she does actually have assets, like a house for example, and is trying to avoid losing them. Even if she’s jailed, the claim doesn’t go away.
More PF hacks crawling out of the woodwork, they must really be desperate to drown this issue in pointless rhetoric!
‘Why’… Because several posts on here say her actions were wrong because they broke the law and that she should be imprisoned. So I am asking anyone who thinks this whether they believe that anything is right to obey as long as it is law. I don’t believe that myself. I don’t think activists believe they are ‘above’ the law, they are often being punished by the paw of the law for their actions, they believe that destroying the environment is wrong, particularly for monetary profit, regardless of what the law is. You may not realise, laws are almost always created by rulers, the infrastucture bill of a couple of years ago allowing fracking to take place under people’s houses without them even knowing it’s happening is an example. You seem angry. It is quite frightening what’s happening I suppose. I hope this answers some of your questions, I don’t think I can explain to you more clearly.
There are many types of law, These are just a few:
Common (natural),
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Banking & Finance Law
Commercial Law
Constitutional/Administrative Law
Construction Law
Contract Law
Corporate Law (pertains only to corporations)
Criminal Law
Employment Law
Environmental Law
Equity & Trusts
EU Law
Family Law
Financial Markets
Human Rights Law
Insurance Law
Intellectual Property Law
Islamic Finance Law
Land Law
Litigation
Personal Injury Law
Private Client Law
Private Equity Law
Property Law
Public Law
Reputation Management
Shipping Law
Sports & Media Law
Tax Law
TMT Law
Tort Law
Travel Law
White Collar
Admiralty
Political,
Dictatorial
Statute (not law, only guidelines)
even law about law!
All these are made for people. People are not made for the law, whichever law it refers to.
Only your inalienable rights are sacrosanct.
Only common law in inalienable, that is it “trumps” (no pun intended, well, not much anyway!) all other law and cannot be changed, altered, removed or superseded by another law, something you are not encouraged to know.
Laws are made by people, people are not made by law.
Your birth certificate of ownership cannot make you an owned person or a corporation property, or goods and chattels or salvage, it only fabricates a fictitious identity of ownership, it is not you. You are a natural person, you live, breath, blood flows, you are answerable only to god, no person corporation, organisation or constitution made by man can come between you and god, only god is your judge, that is inalienable.
Look up ‘artificial person’
Many of these laws only pertain if you are a member of the law society
You can be fooled into declaring yourself legally liable through ignorance of the particular law court you are attending (or not)
It is always important to ask the judge and court to to see the declaration oath they have taken prior to the session and what law is being operated in the court. If the law does not refer to you or you are not a member of the law society in that particular respect, then that particular law does not apply to you and cannot be enforced against you unless you are forced to do so, or out of ignorance fooled into doing so.
You see why it is important to establish Why? When? Where? How? Which? Who?
Good eh?
What price now is ‘Do you obey the law?’
T’anks for the information Phil, I’d heard of a couple o the things you mentioned, not all, I will look at your post again later.
‘You are a natural person, you live, breathe, blood flows’… Yes. I like it. In my view we are cosmic beings capable of being free and responsible and of unfolding into infinity. Yes. Also of connecting with our kindness and compassion. Yes: I am an Anarchist! 😍
Oh look, another Freeman on the Land spouting nonsense.
You wish to be a slave? Carry on.