Activist asks court to throw out Mowi £83k legal costs claim
Staniford points out that salmon farmer missed deadline, and that he has no money to pay
Anti-salmon farming activist Don Staniford is attempting to have Mowi Scotland’s near-£83,000 claim for legal costs against him thrown out of court because it was submitted after a four-month deadline.
The bill for £82,761.15 covers the money that the salmon farmer spent on lawyers during its successful effort to win an interdict (injunction) against Staniford and his subsequent attempts to overturn the interdict, which failed.
The interdict imposed by Oban Sheriff Court banned Staniford from climbing on to the walkways of salmon pens and ordered him to stay 15 metres from Mowi property and from flying drones over farms.
Staniford won concessions at the Sheriff Appeal Court in February last year, when Mowi’s advocate, Jonathan Barne KC, agreed to the scrapping of the 15-metre exclusion zone and the ban on flying drones – which Staniford said he had never done – but the ban on climbing on to pens stayed.
The activist’s efforts to overturn Mowi’s interdict reached the end of the road at a hearing in the Extra Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session, Scotland’s supreme civil court, on November 19. Staniford failed to secure leave for a new appeal and was also ordered to pay Mowi’s costs.
Missed the deadline
Mowi had four months to apply to Oban Sheriff Court for costs but missed the March 19 deadline due to a misunderstanding by a law accountant instructed to compile the claim in January.
In a letter to the court, Mowi’s solicitor Euan McSherry said that the accountant was reminded of the deadline on March 12, but on March 17 replied that he would not be in a position to complete the account for lodging with the court by March 19.
“He reported that he had made an administrative error; and that in over 30 years of running his own business he could not recall having made such an error,” wrote McSherry, who added that urgent steps were taken to have the account prepared as soon as the law accountant’s error was discovered.
“The account spans a period of over five years. The error was not wilful. The period of delay is short. The Pursuer (Mowi) would be prejudiced if motion were to be refused as the right to recover expenses would be lost. In all the circumstances, it is appropriate for permission to lodge the account outside the four-month period to be granted,” wrote McSherry.
Act of Sederunt
Staniford is opposing Mowi’s claim under section 32.1 of the Act of Sederunt (Sheriff Court Ordinary Cause Rules) 1993, which allows a party found entitled to expenses a period of four months to lodge an account of expenses.
He argues Mowi and its agents had ample time to lodge the claim.
During the appeals process Staniford was represented by lawyers understood to be working for little or no fee, but he is now representing himself and pleading poverty.
“Apologies if this is not filed in accordance with normal procedure. However, I no longer have legal representation; some of my computer keys are so sticky I have to go on the internet to copy and paste numbers and characters; and do not have a printer or scanner for a signature,” Staniford wrote to the court.
He added: “Please also note my impecunious position which mean that Mowi's attempts to collect $almoney are moot.”
Last week Staniford told Fish Farming Expert that he had no money to pay Mowi’s legal costs. “Mowi is pissing in the wind. Mowi has more chance of getting blood out of a stone,” the activist said.
