Thames Water tried to make MP pay its legal fees of up to 1,400 an hour

"Thames Water argued that an MP should be forced to pay its hefty legal costs after he represented the interests of the British public in court, a move he described as retaliation for pushing for government control of the crisis-hit utility, the Guardian can reveal. The UK's highest court this week rejected Thames Water's arguments that the Liberal Democrat MP Charlie Maynard should pay legal fees as high as 1,400 per hour."

"The bailout was approved, but Maynard appealed, arguing that the company, which serves 16 million customers in London and south-east England, should be taken into temporary government control. Thames Water's barristers argued that he should be made personally liable for its expensive legal fees to deter future appeals to the supreme court. The utility's lenders, led by a group of hedge funds including the combative American firms Elliott Investment Management and Silver Point Capital, have effectively taken over the business."

"The lenders, who together manage assets in the billions of pounds, also backed Thames Water's decision to pursue Maynard for costs. Maynard said he was relieved after facing the prospect of a ruinous bill, but that he believed Thames Water had carried out an act of retribution for arguing that the company should be put into a special administration regime (SAR) in the interests of billpayers who have no choice but to pay it for its services."

Thames Water sought to make Liberal Democrat MP Charlie Maynard personally liable for its legal costs after he represented public interests and challenged an investor bailout. The UK's highest court rejected the company's claim that Maynard should pay legal fees of up to £1,400 per hour. Thames Water carries about £17bn of net debt and has asked for 15 years' leniency on environmental fines from the government. The company serves 16 million customers in London and south-east England. Lenders led by hedge funds including Elliott and Silver Point have effectively taken control and backed pursuing Maynard for costs. Maynard said the pursuit amounted to retribution for urging a special administration regime to protect billpayers.

Read at www.theguardian.com