Skip to main content

Consultancy Fees and Malicious Falsehood

Something like 18 months after Labour ex-Councillor Tony Kennedy pushed Jim Pendleton into a wall at the Prince of Wales pub in Moseley the Judge has now produced a judgement in the "Malicious Falsehood" case brought against Lib Dem Councillor Martin Mullaney for sending an email saying "Tony Kennedy is going to be Arrested."

As a sort of Small Claims version of Libel none of the outcome is particularly surprising. In this instance Martin gets costs of £60 rather than the £6000 or so he should be due for the amount of work done. Jim Pendleton also gets £50 for loss of earnings.

The case has had its surreal moments like when the Chief Executive of the Pub Chain was suppoenaed to stand as a witness - as if he was there on the night.

A key part of today's press report which has more impact than a row in a pub is the following:
[Mr Kennedy] maintained ... attempts to set up as new business as an independent consultant to developers suffered.
Mr Kennedy said a number of clients backed out of contracts because they feared he would not be able to lobby the planning committee effectively given Coun Mullaney's senior position on it.
He also alleged he began to receive calls from people asking him "to help out in a fight".
Birmingham Post 4th Feb.

What this means is that he was expecting to get "consultancy fees" from developers wanting planning permission, but when Labour lost control of the planning committee they said they would no longer pay him.

Now planning is supposed to be a "quasi judicial" process where there is no party whip and decisions are made on the merits of the case.

Why then would it matter which party controls the planning committee?

I don't think this particular aspect of the case is finished yet.


Jez said…
What this means is that he was expecting to get "consultancy fees" from developers wanting planning permission, but when Labour lost control of the planning committee they said they would no longer pay him.

Alternatively ...

What this mean is that he was expecting to get "consultancy fees" from developers wanting planning permission, but when the vice-chair of the planning committee apparently bore some kind a grudge against him, they said they would no longer pay him.

I know nothing about this case beyond what's been reported in the papers or in Martin's press releases. The only thing I am pretty sure of is that no-one is giving an uncoloured picture.
John Hemming said…
Consultancy fees are fees for advice. There is no reason why anyone would know when he had been offering advice.

Fees for lobbying are an entirely different matter.
Jez said…
Consultancy fees are fees for consultancy, surely, which covers pretty much anything and everything.

Actually, I think providing consultancy services to developers sounds suspicious enough without needing any kind of extra innuendo. Now, if it were possibly to employ someone to make life a bit harder for developers ... well, I could probably get behind that :)
John Hemming said…
Giving advice is one thing, lobbying is another.
Jez said…
Of course, it is. What I'm saying is that pretty much any activity can end up on an invoice as "consulting services".

Nuancing on precisely what Tony Kennedy meant by "consultancy fees", when his evidence was seems to have been pretty thoroughly trashed by the judge, to imply potential malpractice seems a bit of a stretch.

If there was or is corruption in the council, then I want to know about it. However, rumour and hint and nudge-nudging serves only to feed cynicism of public office. I don't want that; people should be, and should want to be, engaged with government at all levels. As someone who has devoted a great deal of time and effort in elected office, I'd assume you don't want that either.
John Hemming said…
The essence is that advice would be OK, but then it would not matter who is in control of the authority.

Paid lobbying is not OK for Planning as no lobbying should work for planning because it is quasi judicial.
Jez said…
Ah, ok, I understand the point you're making now.

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England. The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity. The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back. This is an issue that needs further work. In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.

Problems with Outlook Express - emails lost dbx corruption

In the light of the enthusiasm shown for my post relating to the OCX control that must not be named (and probably Microsoft's most embarrassing error of recent years) I thought I would write someting about Outlook Express. Outlook Express is the email client that comes as part of windows. I use it myself, although I have my emails filtered through a spam filter of my own devising written in java. It takes email off a number of servers using POP3 (Post Office Protocol TCP Port 110) and sends it using SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol port 25). I have recently spent a few hours dealing with the problem that arises when .dbx files get corrupted during compacting. Outlook Express (OE) stores the emails (and other things) in files with the suffix .dbx. Each folder has its own .dbx file. They are stored in hidden directories. This makes it harder to deal with things when OE goes wrong. It is very important to back up your stored *.dbx files as otherwise if you have a disk cra

Statement re False Allegations Campaign

Many people will know that my family and I have been subject to a campaign of false allegations by Esther Baker for the past 4 1/2 years. Yesterday there was a court judgment Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB) which formally confirmed that the allegations were false. Esther Baker, who had brought a libel claim against me, dropped her defence of Truth to my counter-claim and was taken by the judge as no longer trying to prove her allegations. Due to Baker's various breaches of court rules and orders, she has been barred from further repeating her allegations even in the court proceedings. Further claim of mine in libel against Baker are ongoing. There is a good summary in the Daily Mail here . This demonstrates the challenge in fighting false allegations in today's Britain. A substantial campaign was built up to promote allegations which had no substance to them. Various Labour MPs and in