- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Royal Courts of Justice, London (picture bortescristian, Wikimedia Commons)Mini Holland opponents boast of wasting taxpayers' money with legal challenge
Opponents of Waltham Forest’s Mini Holland scheme may have lost a High Court case last week – but they are claiming victory because they say the council’s legal costs incurred in its defence of the action will take money away from the project.
Last week, campaign group E17 Streets for All had its case thrown out of court, with Mr Justice Holgate finding that their complaints had “no merit whatsoever” and awarding costs of £12,000 against them – and they will also have to pay their own legal fees on top of that.
– Opponents of Waltham Forest Mini Holland scheme have case thrown out of court
After losing the action, the group, quoted on TransportXtra.com, said: “Despite this latest legal setback it will cost us very little, but the cost to the council for both actions and their large legal team, will be a substantial sum from their Mini Holland budget.”
It’s not clear whether the money the council spent to defend th action will come from the £27 million set aside for the Mini Holland project, or from other council funds.
However, Waltham Forest, which has acknowledged that it spent more than £12,000 in defending the case, emphasises that it is taxpayers who will have to foot the bill.
A council spokesman said: “When someone mounts a court action against the council we have little option but to defend our legal position, particularly when legal advice indicates that the case against us is very weak.
“We made every effort to ensure that this case did not have to get to court, but in the event the claimants would not withdraw their claim.
“The total costs incurred in mounting our legal defence are still to be calculated, but we are pleased that the court awarded us costs to assist,” he added.
Waltham Forest is one of three boroughs that won Mini Holland funding from Transport for London, the others being Enfield and Kingston-upon-Thames.
– “Silent majority” back Enfield’s Mini Holland as Chris Boardman visits borough
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Daclu Trelub 33 min 13 sec ago
A bit like underarm, surely?
- hand0j1n 1 hour 48 min ago
Hopefully the new device is a big success, but wahoo do have a lot work to do in terms of convincing that their quality control has improved. ...
- chrisonabike 38 min 25 sec ago
Agree that the moaning comes from a place of priveledge and ultimately "if only there weren't so many other people driving"....
- Simon E 2 hours 23 min ago
Have added some clarification....
- Simon E 2 hours 32 min ago
I was tempted to try Galibier gloves but opted for Endura Freezing Point from LBS last year. Not cheap (£60, I think). I'd prefer a shorter cuff...
- Simon E 3 hours 10 min ago
I can't wait that long! Here's a series that any good vlogger / 'grammer would surely recognise....
- Simon E 3 hours 19 min ago
At 2.30pm on Saturday a small hatchback car "came to rest on its side in a precarious position" near the hamlet of Ratlinghope on the west side of...
- IanMK 3 hours 56 min ago
I do wonder if Highway Planners and Councils understand all the implications of putting in traffic calming measures. They certainly take no...
- Oldfatgit 4 hours 15 min ago
How long before some waste of DNA complains about them on the footpath ... or for Grimsby [and the other shit-tips] to ban them ...
- mattw 5 hours 4 min ago
I've only just spotted this....
Add new comment
11 comments
Why can the council not recover legal costs from the party that lost the case?
How very grown up. It's cringeworthy how so called 'adults' behave. At least the rest of us can be smug in the knowledge that these petty idiots spend most of their life being miserable. You lot carry on sitting behind other cars , getting fat, taking no joy from life. I'll be out on me bike with a grin on my face...
The money for E17 Streets For All is coming from a small number of deep pocketed individuals not the group donations. This is according to the members I've spoken to.
E17 Streets for All - the urban Countryside Alliance.
"Despite this latest legal setback it will cost us very little..."
Am I missing something or are they callying £12,000 "very little"? And if I'm not missing anything where is their funding coming from?! Any of the grass-roots campaign groups I've known would have been hard pushed to find that kind of money.
Agree. Given the coverage this is getting, it should be made clear who is behind this group and what their interest is. It is hard to understand the context of the story when nobody seems to be able to explain this.
As you say, a residents group would not be able to find 12K.
I think funding for the Waltham Forest MH scheme is already allocated as a grant and thus ring-fenced. Costs incurred by the council for this court action will come from their general budget, just like any other court case they had to defend, so can only hurt the local community as it reduces funding for other council services.
Even if this were not the case and the court costs came out of the MH budget, that few thousand wouldn't make much of a dent in the £27 million pounds of funding, so either way it hasn't made a difference.
E17 Streets For All are great at spin and preaching to the converted, but that's about it. sadly I don't think they will accept the inevitable so we'll keep having to hear their nonsense for some time yet.
Er - why? Given that the court has thrown out their complaints as 'without merit' then surely the council is entitled to go full steam ahead on the project. The money might come from some other part of the council's budget. Clearly these people don't give a flying monkey's bottom about anything except their own right to drive and park wherever they want - if you sue a council, you are suing all of the people who pay council tax to that council.
Ah, the black knight defense. They've just had their arms and legged lobbed off, and yet they're telling tales of their opponents grievous injuries whilst they bleed out.
What a bunch of idiots.
As a local of Waltham Forest I just don't mention Mini Holland. I worry if I start talking about it that people I used to like might suddenly turn into total arses in front of me and I will not be able to talk to them ever again.
Sigh.
Some days reading the internet makes me long for "The Rapture".