Liverpool City Council has been asked to rethink paying Joe Anderson’s legal bills.
In its court struggle with former Mayor Joe Anderson over payment of his legal bills, Liverpool City Council has suffered a setback.
Following a High Court challenge, the council has been asked to reconsider paying the former leader’s legal fees.
Mr. Anderson, 63, was detained in December on bribery and witness intimidation charges, which he denies.
For the first time, the details of Joe Anderson’s inquiry were heard in court.
He sued his former company earlier this year for failing to offer indemnity to cover his legal costs in defending himself against the allegations.
However, in a ruling issued today, High Court judge Mrs Justice Yip stated that the council had implemented its own policy incorrectly in refusing to give the compensation.
Mr. Anderson resigned as mayor before the May elections. He is still being investigated by the police, but he denies any wrongdoing.
The council’s decision not to provide the indemnity to Mr Anderson was taken because it would not have been permissible to do so, and the claims against him did not relate to work he undertook while Mayor of Liverpool, according to the High Court hearing on July 20.
Mrs Justice Yip, on the other hand, said the policy had been applied incorrectly and that the request should be reconsidered.
Liverpool City Council today expressed disappointment with the initial decision and stated that it would reconsider.
The witness Mr Anderson was accused of intimidating was Liverpool City Council chief executive Tony Reeves, according to the July hearing.
The claim is said to be connected to disciplinary procedures involving Nick Kavanagh, the council’s former director of development, who was also arrested as part of the same Merseyside Police probe. He denies any misconduct as well.
Police discovered a disciplinary file linked to Mr Kavanagh at Mr Anderson’s home, according to the court.
The court heard that Mr Anderson aided in the securing of council contracts for a company owned by his son, David Anderson, and that he benefited financially when his son purchased his home.
David Anderson, Mr. Anderson’s son, similarly denies any wrongdoing.
“It is manifestly right that receiving a bribe or participating in witness,” Mrs Justice Yip wrote in her decision.
“The summary comes to an end.”