Council to back officers in bringing defamation claims against members

A local authority has agreed to back its chief executive and other officers if they bring a defamation action in their own name against three councillors.

The three members at Rutland County Council – Cllrs Richard Gale, David Richardson and Nick Wainwright – are claimed to have suggested that officers were involved in fraud and corruption, suspect planning approvals, misuse of public money and misspent grant funding.

At a special council meeting on 29 July, 16 councillors at Rutland voted in support of the recommendation that an indemnity should be granted and support given to the officers. One councillor voted against, while another abstained.

Two of the three councillors concerned, who now form the Rutland group of UKIP, left the meeting early after declaring an interest (Cllrs Gale and Richardson). The third (Cllr Wainwright) was among six members to send apologies.

The indemnity has been given on condition that any sums recovered by an officer as a result of the action taken should first be applied to defray any costs incurred by Rutland in indemnifying and supporting the legal action, before any remaining balance is received by the officer concerned.

Cllr Roger Begy, Rutland’s Leader, said: “This is a particularly difficult decision and one that members have taken after careful consideration. Councillors are well aware of the financial risk of taking this route, but feel we have no option. If we sit back and do nothing, we are open to constructive dismissal claims from staff as well as recruitment and retention issues.”

Rutland’s Leader said that the legal route was “an absolute last resort”. However, he added that it was one the council was prepared to take in order to protect its officers. 

Cllr Begy added: “The quickest and cheapest way to resolve this latest position is for the three councillors (Gale, Richardson and Wainwright) to either agree publicly that they have been mistaken and issue a full apology, or to provide evidence that supports their claims.”

According to the BBC, the three councillors have asked for more time to consider the council’s demand. They have also said they would take legal advice, maintaining that they need to ask difficult questions to carry out their jobs.

A letter sent to Cllrs Gale, Wainwright and Richardson on 1 July requested a full and unequivocal retraction and apology to Rutland’s chief executive and other officers as a matter of urgency.

The letter told the three members that if there was no response within 14 days the council reserved the right to take the necessary steps to commence legal proceedings.

According to a report prepared for the special meeting on 29 July, Cllr Gale replied on behalf of the group, claiming that they were themselves being subjected to harassment.

The special meeting is the latest development in a long-running dispute.

In January 2013 councillors at Rutland deferred a decision over whether the authority should make a groundbreaking claim for defamation against three of its members.

Law firm Bevan Brittan had said that the general power of competence in s. 1 of the Localism Act 2011 had overturned the bar on councils suing in defamation.

A minister, Lord McNally, subsequently insisted that the Government was “in no doubt” that if a claim were brought by a local authority, the courts would still find that councils cannot bring actions in defamation.

The minister also suggested that even if the courts did not agree, the situation “could be remedied by way of a statutory instrument under section 5(3) of the Localism Act 2011”.

Although Rutland chose not to sue in its own name, it did give the go-ahead at the January meeting to seek an injunction preventing alleged harassment of the chief executive and other officers by the three members, who were then part of the Rutland Anti-Corruption Group.

It was confirmed at this week’s meeting that the resolutions agreed in January were still valid, even though Gale, Richardson and Wainwright had since formed a new political group.