Tina Rothery supporters outside Preston Combined Court this afternoon
Anti-fracking campaigner, Tina Rothery, has avoided a two-week jail sentence, following a long-running dispute with the shale gas firm, Cuadrilla.
A judge at Preston Combined Court ruled this afternoon that Ms Rothery should not go to prison for contempt of court and discharged the order against her.
Supporters in and outside the court cheered the outcome.
The private hearing was listed as Cuadrilla V Rothery, despite a claim yesterday by the company’s lawyers, Eversheds, that the case had nothing to do with the company. A lawyer from Eversheds was representing the company during the hearing, most of which was in private.
Ms Rothery had been found in contempt of court earlier this year when she refused to give details of her financial circumstances. She had been ordered to pay costs of more than £55,000 incurred by Cuadrilla, in a legal dispute dating back to 2014.
She was sentenced to two weeks in Styal Prison in Cheshire but today she had a final chance to complete a financial questionnaire.
At a private hearing this afternoon, the judge ruled that she should not go to jail.
The case is linked to a long-running dispute about legal costs.
In 2014, Cuadrilla sought an injunction at the High Court preventing access by groups and individuals to sites in the Fylde area of Lancashire.
Ms Rothery, the only named defendant, asked for an adjournment. When the injunction case returned to court she offered no evidence and legal costs of more than £50,000 were awarded against her.
She later offered to pay £500 but Cuadrilla rejected this and since then costs have been increasing at a rate of 8%.
Yesterday, Eversheds, Cuadrilla’s lawyers, said today’s hearing was about the contempt of court finding. But the case was described as “Cuadrilla versus Rothery (order/questioning)”.
More details soon
Categories: Legal
DRILL OR DROP? 
Excellent news! maybe still some way to go, though, thanks for making the report Ruth.
So she completed the financial questionnaire as ordered by the court so she was no longer in contempt. The court determined she had no assets of any value and so Cuadrilla dropped the case because it was pointless. Not much of a win really is it?
Are you unable to read? Are you telling us you have knowledge outside this report? Get real. What’s your point anyway?
@Blue Burmese, I think you will find even Caudrilla are not THAT stupid to spend thousands on legal fees pursuing someone who has no assets. It is all about bullying and trying to deter their opponents, and is backfired badly.
What a lovely employer you have!
Yes they bloody were. They pursued it to the end of the line and now stand as stupid and humiliated.A few ten grand means nothing to them.
Seems about right.
Fantastic news! Thank you Tina for everything
Well done Ms Rothery, absolute heroine.
thanks Tina..good luck ..glad the lawyers r still making a million.
‘Cuadrilla versus Rothery’
Bad press for a company who struggle to even pretend they care about local communities.
Well done Tina.
Especially when they spent last week trying to claim it wasn’t them pursuing Cuadrilla. Why did their lawyers Eversheds even need to be there if it was purely a court matter as they tried to claim. This is a very bad day for Cuadrilla.
Who wasn’t pursuing Cuadrilla?
oops – Tina not Cuadrilla – I must have got over-excited at seeing them humiliated like this LOL
This lady should be given a medal 🌟🌟
Reblogged this on The Greater Fool.
Blimey – has Peeny got is own website? LOL
And this statement is untrue – A Cuadrilla Spokesperson said: “Having previously been found in contempt of Court, Ms Rothery has today attended Court and complied with the Court’s order to provide information as to her financial means, thus purging her contempt. “She could have easily avoided this situation and avoided yet again wasting court time and taxpayers money. A barrister attended Court on behalf of the Judgment Creditors (Cuadrilla and the landowners) as the Court required him to do so.
More fracking lies from Cuadrilla as they try to whitewash their vindictive behaviour
Which part(s) of the statement is/are untrue? Are you saying that she did not provide information (to the Court) as to her financial means? If she did not comply with the Court Order then what happened? Are you also saying that the statement “She could have easily avoided this situation and avoided yet again wasting court time and taxpayers money” is also not correct
There must be grounds for her to take Cuadrilla to court for telling lies? She should win easily?
Kate Styles???
From the Guardian article linked by Refracktion:
“Appearing at Preston combined court on Friday, she provided evidence that she could not pay the fees and the contempt charge was dropped.”
Before or after Caudrilla agreed to drop the case Paul? Perhaps Eversheds can confirm the sequence of events and why that sequence happened? We all need to know don’t we? Come on Eversheds or Cuadrilla – how did this pan out – you can tell us – nobody else needs to know! LOL
Thinking of the forgiveness speech at Standing Rock by the veterans in Dakota USA to the native protectors, perhaps the CEO of Cuadrilla should kneel before Tina and ask for forgiveness?
Ha ha – best laugh in ages – mind you I missed HIGNFY tonight – will have to watch it on catch up…..
You didn’t miss a lot – Just Jacob V Smug trying and failing to be Boris