KE­DEM ‘PRECE­DENTS’

The Jewish Chronicle - - COMMENT -

I have no wish to be de­featist as to a pos­si­ble le­gal rem­edy in re­spect of the protest at the Ke­dem store in Manch­ester as sug­gested by Jonathan Gold­berg ( Let­ters, Aug 1). I will leave it to oth­ers to judge whether £36,000 is a bar­gain com­pared to mar­ket rates (I’m sure many other lawyers would join me in of­fer­ing our ser­vices for free) but the po­ten­tial for dis­as­ter is great.

Mr Gold­berg sug­gests we should es­tab­lish a prece­dent. Has it not oc­curred to my learned friend that los­ing is also a prece­dent? That an in­junc­tion (even if granted) would be against a bunch of in­di­vid­u­als who would wel­come that fight, pur­sue their de­fence, “no win, no fee”, and draw us into a bat­tle that could be a PR and le­gal dis­as­ter, and hugely ex­pen­sive, even if we win. Is the £36,000 a cap on all costs? Or could the com­mu­nity end up with bills for £360,000 plus costs?

This bat­tle is one to be fought on the streets not in the courts. It is about get­ting the mes­sage over. It is for the GM Po­lice and Manch­ester City Coun­cil to take ac­tion to take back the streets and en­force the le­git­i­mate rules of protest, not the de­lib­er­ate dis­rup­tion of trade to Ke­dem and its neigh­bour­ing stores. “Law­fare” has its place; King Street, Manch­ester, isn’t it. Mark Lewis, So­lic­i­tor Strand, Lon­don, WC2

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.