As the Guardian reported last night:
The Guardian is to defend robustly a legal action seeking to force the disclosure of the documents that formed the basis of its Paradise Papers investigation.
The offshore company at the heart of the story, Appleby, has launched breach of confidence proceedings against the Guardian and the BBC.
In legal correspondence, Appleby has also demanded that the Guardian and the BBC disclose any of the 6m Appleby documents that informed their reporting for a project that provoked worldwide anger and debate over the tax dodges used by individuals and multinational companies.
Appleby is also seeking damages for the disclosure of what it says are confidential legal documents.
It has, of course, always been the favoured trick of those who despise the state so much that they try to avoid any regulation that it imposes to resort to its legal protection whenever they might. But it's telling that the action is only being brought against the BBC and Guardian and only in the UK. And that's because the fact is that UK libel law still stacks the odds against the telling of truth in this country. And that means the law becomes a weapon for the rich and powerful to use to suppress tales of abuse of all sorts.
This has been used to prevent the publication of many stories that have caused untold personal harm and long term suffering.
On this occasion the UK's legal bias towards those with wealth is being used to support the organised offshore abuse of the democratic right of countries to tax.
Not only do Appleby's deserve to lose heavily, the point has to still be made that even after recent libel law changes the UK is the remaining place for such litigation, as this case proves. And that has to change. Not that I see much chance of that given the cover ups that will be required to make it look as if any aspect of Brexit might work.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Well said.
The UK today: Tax haven, libel litigation haven, divorce haven, oligarch haven, land ownership haven. Have I missed anything?
Takeover haven
Asset stripping haven
Not forgetting
Leasehold haven.
Yes…
Land haven (and within Britain, Scotland wins the laurels!)
Depressingly true. But on the plus side, it’s also the place where you can do this:
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/jr4nhs-round2/
Everyone who worries about restrictions on ‘our service industries’ or ‘our voice’ on the world stage after Brexit needs to realise that this is precisely what they were hoping to protect. That Brexit gives the rest of the world the chance to insulate themselves from the almost universally malign effects of the City of London (legal and financial) is an unalloyed good thing.
Remember that the EU that people were being asked to remain in was, thanks to David Cameron’s awful ‘concessions’, going to be one with even weaker controls on any of this.
It’s also the place where the poor get poorer and the middle class find it hard to better themselves!!!
This is in addition to the various cuts in funding for people of little means to access justice. This often means that poor people have only theoretical protection under the law.
Freeholder haven. Leasehold property tenure has been abolished in every country that inherited it from English common law except England and Wales. See https://www.leaseholdknowledge.com for the tip of the iceberg of injustice blighting the lives of millions.
Add in concealed ownership via BVI companies & similar (see https://www.private-eye.co.uk/registry) and you have a licence for unaccountable exploitation.
Agreed
Frank, in what way is it that the poor don’t get less poor and the middle class don’t find it hard to better themselves in this country, as it iscurrently mismanaged by our awful, ideologically austerity obsessed government.
It’s perhaps uncharitable to say so at this time of year but your comment is nothing less than complete bollocks.
I tend to agree
Appleby getting hammered would be a terrific thing. In reality though I think they’ll weasel out of it with nothing more than a slapped wrist.
Better increase my Guardian subscription!
Isn’t the court case for ‘breach of confidence’ rather than libel, which is, so far as I can find out, covered by the Human Rights Act (according to Wikipedia)?
It is
But I suspect that it’s been undertaken here because we are so inclined to support wealth through out court system
Isn’t the case against the BBC & The Guardian, both UK based so the case has to be here?
I think that rather misses the point
The case could have been brought in about 60 countries
And since the leak was to SudDeutsche Zeitung it should logically be in Germany
But it was brought in the UK because that’s where Appleby’s thought they might win
I think my post made that clear so why are you wasting my time posting pointless comment?
Keep doing it and you end up on the banned list
“But I suspect that it’s been undertaken here because we are so inclined to support wealth through out court system”
I’ve tried reading this sentence a few times but am not sure I understand it:
1. Are you saying they are taking action for breach of confidence when there is really another cause of action?
2. In an action against the BBC/Guardian, who is ‘wealth’ in this case which the court is to support?
3. Are you saying Appleby should not be entitled to recourse to the courts if they have a claim against BBC/Guardian?
Thanks in anticipation, if you can clarify.
Out should have been our
Does that help?
Hi Richard.
It might help to understand the difference.
If you stole some confidential information and gave it to a newspaper that might be breach of confidence. You could claim public interest as a defence.
If on the other hand you lied about, say, whether a firm was aiding in tax evasion when it wasn’t then that would be libel. There wouldn’t be a public interest defence because what you were claiming wasn’t true.
If you can bear this in mind it might save you some agro.
I am utterly aware of the difference
And the point, as I have made to others, is with regard to law
We have a body of precedent in the UK that biases to wealth and I very much doubt that this is coincidental in the decision to claim here
In the meantime, if you wish to a) be patronising and b) miss the point feel free to go elsewhere
Richard
I cannot see that there has been any libel so why do you keep referring to the libel laws in your post?
The BBC and Guardian don’t seem to have claimed anything that could amount to libel. If they said Appleby knowingly helped clients to evade tax and that wasn’t correct then that would be lible. Then the case would be a libel case.
I wonder whether you think any civil case about tax reporting is a libel case! But it isn’t!
Although both breach of confidence and libel cases can be very very very expensive if you lose.
Hope this helps.
I was drawing a parallel with libel law because it has set precedents that create bias in the UK
And you may know precedent counts here
Sooner or later Peter Thiel will take on the Grauniad, and then it’s over.
An acquaintance from my mis-spent youth, Nick Denton, found out the hard way:
Gawker.com is out of business because one wealthy person maliciously set out to destroy it, spending millions of dollars in secret, and succeeded. That is the only reason.
A Billionaire is a sovereign country of one man: one king, one judge, one Cardinal, above all petty rules of justice and taxation that bind lesser men and nations of mere citizens. Sooner or later the Guardian will cause enough embarrassment to a Billionaire – by, say, revealing where he puts his money beyond scrutiny – and all of the political and legal power that can be bought will descend upon the wittering literati of Farringdon.
The Financial Times is safe: they are the property of another Billionaire.