Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Hamilton backers may be liable for pounds 2.5m bill

Kim Sengupta
Thursday 23 December 1999 00:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

CONTRIBUTORS TO the legal fund to support Neil Hamilton in his libel action against Mohamed Al Fayed may be held liable for pounds 2.5m in costs.

The donors are seen under law as "maintainers" who have sustained Mr Hamilton in hislegal actions against the Harrods owner over "cash for questions" allegations, and will be held accountable for payment if the former MP for Tatton files for bankruptcy.

The development came as more supporters' names began to emerge, including the Earl of Portsmouth, and it was revealed that the Hamiltons' legal bill was far higher than had been thought.

The judge, Mr Justice Morland, awarded costs against Mr Hamilton over the action, which has dragged on for five years. Mr Fayed's side has only had to make one payment to Mr Hamilton, of about pounds 60,000, after failing at a Court of Appeal hearing in March last year.

Mr Hamilton was also ordered to disclose the names of anyone who had donated more than pounds 5,000. But Lord Harris of High Cross, one of those running the fund, said he would rather face prison than identify donors. He said: "At the moment I am highly disinclined to give any names. If it was a question of a week in jail for contempt of court then I suppose I would have to do it."

Just how liable individual members of the fund would be will have to be decided by the judge. However, legal experts said that liability does not stop with the amount pledged or given, but only when the whole sum had been recovered.

Further reports, page 2

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in