Steven Barrett

Has the Good Law Project been dealt an existential blow?

Jolyon Maugham (Photo: Getty)

There seems to be a degree of confusion that surrounds some court cases these days. Sadly this has proven true of the latest case by the Good Law Project, which has challenged the hiring of Dido Harding as chair of Test and Trace in the courts. This afternoon the High Court released its judgment on the case.

First some were confused that the decision represented a ‘blow’ against the Prime Minister. It did not. The court stated clearly that the PM was wrongly sued. In paragraph 135 it said:

‘We agree and indeed it appears to be common ground that only the Secretary of State is the relevant Defendant for the purpose of any remedy to be granted’ – which means the PM should not have been sued.

Next there was some confusion that the Good Law Project had ‘won’. It had not. Every claim brought by the GLP failed.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in