Canary Riverside’s lawyers at Trowers & Hamlins in ‘ill-conceived’ bid to thwart Parliamentary debate

Yesterday, 24th July 2018, saw the extraordinary step of international law firm, Trowers & Hamlins, trying to intervene in a Parliamentary debate on leasehold issues.

In a point of order raised on the last day in Parliament  Jim Fitzpatrick MP for Limehouse and Poplar, advised the House of Commons:

” I believe that yesterday Mr Speaker received an email from a law firm, Trowers & Hamlins, which represents Octagon Overseas Ltd and Mr John Christodoulou in enforcement action against leaseholders at Canary Riverside in my constituency. The law firm asked for my Adjournment debate scheduled for later today, ‘First tier tribunals, section 24 powers and enforcement on freeholders’ not to take place, claiming that the debate will be subject to sub judice rules.”

 

Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe that yesterday Mr Speaker received an email from a law firm, Trowers & Hamlins, which represents Octagon Overseas Ltd and Mr John Christodoulou in enforcement action against leaseholders at Canary Riverside in my constituency. The law firm asked for my Adjournment debate scheduled for later today—“First tier tribunals, section 24 powers and enforcement on freeholders”—not to take place, claiming that the debate will be subject to sub judice rules. I have no intention of raising any sub judice matter. My debate is about the weaknesses in the rules concerning both first-tier tribunals and the section 24 powers of the court in general.

Mr Deputy Speaker, can you first confirm that my debate will go ahead, despite the attempted gagging email? Secondly, will you agree such efforts to direct you and Mr Speaker to stifle debates and to prevent MPs from raising matters of concern for their constituents are heavy-handed and wholly inappropriate?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he wished to raise this matter. It may be helpful if I first make it clear that the House’s sub judice resolution is not an externally-imposed rule, but a self-denying ordinance by which the House has agreed to limit its freedom of speech by avoiding references in debate to cases that are active before the UK courts. Certain exemptions apply and the resolution is subject always to the discretion of the Chair. It is not always practicable for the Chair or those who advise us to identify all cases that might come up in debate, or to ascertain in a timely way what the current status of those cases is. It can be quite helpful to be alerted to such cases, and there is nothing wrong with outside parties writing to draw our attention to potential sub judice concerns.

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s questions, I can confirm that his Adjournment debate will go ahead today. I am grateful for his assurance that he has no intention of raising any matter that is sub judice. I would not characterise the letter that Mr Speaker received yesterday as “wholly inappropriate”, though I agree that the final paragraph was ill conceived in arguing that it was imperative that the debate should not go ahead. I hope that this response is satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your response to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick).

If I speak in the Adjournment debate, I shall be referring to something with discretion, which I hope will not invite the Chair to intervene.

Can we ask for the Procedure Committee to decide whether any letter of that kind should always be sent to the Member of Parliament involved, as well as to the Speaker, so that the Member of Parliament knows what is going on behind the scenes? Can it also be clarified that this applies to courts of first instance, and does not normally apply to appeal courts, which are thought not to be influenced by what happens in Parliament?

Mr Deputy Speaker

First, I know that the hon. Gentleman always uses discretion—I would expect nothing else from such a senior Member. Regarding the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s point of order, I would like to refer to colleagues and come back to him.

.

Related posts:

John Christodoulou minions get the boot at Canary Riverside War of attrition continues between Canary Riverside freeholder John Christodoulou and the court-appointed manager … Canary Riverside freeholder told to co-operate with court appointed managing agent Legal arms race as Canary Riverside freeholder seeks judicial review Commons debate leasehold. Tuesday December 20