Christine Laird appeals against ruling on costs
Former managing director of Cheltenham Borough Council, Christine Laird, will appeal against a High Court judgement forcing her to pay a £280,000 legal bill.
If she wins, Cheltenham taxpayers will be footing the bill of the unsuccessful court case to the tune of more than £1 million.
-
Former Cheltenham Borough Council MD Christine Laird
Mrs Laird, who lives in Tewkesbury, last month won the case brought against her by the council in the High Court.
The council alleged she had been negligent and fraudulent because she omitted to mention a history of depression when she filled in a medical questionnaire. It formed part of her application for the top job at the council in January 2002.
The authority claimed she cost it more than £1m in fees, legal costs and time off sick.
But the judgement by Mr Justice Hamblen was that Mrs Laird should pay 35 per cent of her costs, because many of the allegations she made in her defence, including claims of bullying by senior councillors, were unfounded.
Now Mrs Laird, 52, has lodged an appeal to force the borough council to pay all of her costs.
Her husband Hugh, a management consultant, said: "Now the dust has settled, and all the bills are in, we know that our defence cost us £800,000, not the £500,000 mentioned in court.
"That has left us with a bill of £280,000."
Mr Laird said that having been cleared of the charges against her, she should not be expected to pay for her defence.
He said: "She was found innocent and to penalise her with what is effectively this fine is not right.
"The judge said her defence took up a lot of time, but fraud is a horrible charge which stays with you for ever.
"Our advice is that you are allowed to defend yourself against that charge, and it would be bad news for anybody who is sued if they can't defend themselves for fear of having to pay a huge bill.
"It is clearly unfair that my wife wins the case and yet is left broke and feeling like a victim."
Mrs Laird's appeal will be assessed by a single law lord and, if approved, will go before the Court of Appeal.
The borough's costs in the original case were £400,000. On top of that, it was also ordered to pay 65 per cent of Mrs Laird's estimated £540,000 legal costs. If Mrs Laird wins her appeal, the cost to the taxpayer will top £1.2 million.
Andrew North, chief executive of Cheltenham Borough Council, said: "This is the first we have heard of any appeal. If Mrs Laird wishes to appeal the costs award that is her decision and we will have to see whether leave to appeal is given. Clearly we will have to seek our own legal advice on the matter."
23 Comments
View all
by Taxpayer, Chelt
Wednesday, July 08 2009, 11:41AM
“I don't claim to know everything about this case, but what I will say is I heard a sound byte from her husband on the radi yesterday, saying they just couldn't afford the balance of the legal fees. Then what would have happened if she had lost altogether and they had to foot the entire billl?”
by The Speller, Cheltenham
Wednesday, July 08 2009, 11:31AM
“Mr Readman
Perhaps 'selective omission' might have been a better term than 'lacking in accuracy'.
You stated 'The counterclaim for costs in defending the case...' - whereas in fact the counterclaim was for much more than those costs and was found by the judge to be somewhat fanciful in many respects.
As I said before, this clearly lengthened proceedings and added to costs on both sides.”
by ryan, chelt
Wednesday, July 08 2009, 10:26AM
“most of cbc office workers need to be checked upon , where they get their qualifactions from is beyond me . example relative of mine given a flat all the plaster right back to the brick had to come off , was told by a so called officer they would do it after he moved in ,, thats after having new carpets fitted and new furniture . the plasterer even said it was stupid as he would get the new carpets damaged , which would mean putting in a claim , i could not get this through the officers head , what a waste of money .. so they should sack the people that interview these so called officers”
by Charles Rickards, Cheltenham (Spa)
Tuesday, July 07 2009, 6:49PM
“This brought a BLAST from Cheltenhams PAST! Yes, we used to have trains that linked Cheltenham's car parks! It drove around town, with traffic queued up behind it! We had three of them and they became known as the ¿Noddy trains¿ They lasted about 18 months before the Council scrapped them. Those ¿Noddy Trains¿ cost the taxpayers £600,000 per year. Who was responsible for that squandering and did they remain in positions of council accountability? Who was the Noddy?”
by George Readman, Prestbury
Tuesday, July 07 2009, 5:48PM
“The Speller, Cheltenham,
Look again at the heading. It reads;
Between:
CHELTENHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL
Claimant
- and -
CHRISTINE SUSAN LAIRD
Defendant
That is what was before the court and Mrs Laird was compelled to answer a great many accusations by Members and council staff which were not related to her application for employment .
She had a perfect right to defend herself and could not be expected to roll over and give up. She defended herself and she won the case.
What do you consider is inaccurate about my earlier comment.? The judgement relates to one case and the costs arising from it..”
by tykelip, cheltenham
Tuesday, July 07 2009, 5:10PM
“I haven't read the judgement, and I'm confused.
Was it the content of Ms Laird's defence that made the judge rule as he did on the allocation of costs? Or was it her counter-claim?
If it 's just about her defence evidence, then I don't see how she can be made to pay. Like it or not, she won the case.
If it's about her counter-claim, then there might be a case for her to pay a share of the costs.”
by M Patel, Cheltenham
Tuesday, July 07 2009, 4:45PM
“I wonder how much this spat between Cllr. McKinlay, a so called politician, and Mrs Laird, a well qualified, highly experienced and highly paid, public servant, has cost Cheltenham Borough Council. Cost not only in terms of cash, but more importantly reputation.
It is incredible to think that the rest of the Council, senior officers, and other more reputable politicians, didn¿t put a stop to this madness before it spiralled out of control, and started to rack up costs.
I travel about quite a lot, and whenever I mention that I¿m from Cheltenham, I am met with knowing smirks and sympathetic words. It is so embarrassing. We are a Festival Town, not a Toy Town. Aren¿t we?
The Council is a joke - a sort of Music Hall Farce.
First Act the ¿Noddy Train¿, followed by a ¿Dotty Claim¿. What¿s next?
On a more serious note, we really must demand a full audit of what has been going on in our name. An Inquiry into costs and behaviour are necessary. To learn a lesson, and hopefully prevent these stupidities happening again. Isn¿t this something our highly esteemed Aldermen and the Standards Committee could take on?”
by The Speller, Cheltenham
Tuesday, July 07 2009, 4:36PM
“You are lacking in accuracy Mr Readman.
The counterclaim by Mrs Laird did not just relate to her costs in defending the case, but to a host of other issues, all of which were dismissed by the judge.
This part of the proceedings was therefore lengthened, adding to costs on both sides.
Whether or not the judge was right is a matter for the courts to decide.”
by Female., Gloucestershire.
Tuesday, July 07 2009, 4:32PM
“How much more does this woman need to take, -- let her be,-- she is obviously a very gutsy lady, -- she must have suffered great distress from all this, -- SHE SHOULD BE ASKING FOR COMPENSATION FOR THE TERRIBLE TIME SHE HAS ENDURED!!!
Best wishes to you Christine!”
by Racoon, Gloucester
Tuesday, July 07 2009, 3:13PM
“Can someone confirm that it will be the tax payers in Cheltenham who have to foot the bill for this wasted exercise? Just trying to keep my costs down here in good old Glos. Thanks and it must be good to have such determined councillors.”