Dan Neidle is a London-based tax lawyer and principal of a non-profit think tank called Tax Policy Associates. Its website states that its aim is “to improve tax and legal policy, and the [British] public understanding of tax”.
Leighton Associates is also a non-profit; we have been “de-mystifying [NZ] employment law since 2019”, albeit without lobbying. There’s not much overlap between tax law and employment law, but despite this we found some common interest. Two of Neidle’s articles are on our blogsite, both related to the British Post Office Scandal.
UK Post Office cynically attempts to put Horizon compo out of reach (14 October 2024)
Both specialist media and lobbying are likely to upset people occasionally. For example, an employment law blog that links back to multiple publicised documents with an explanation of how those documents relate to each other, could cause our curious readers to form a view around the position of parties to an employment dispute that could not have happened when individual records are viewed in isolation. By definition, legal blogging (within our Code of Ethics and legal constraints such as non-publication orders) could be highly inconvenient to one party and/or the other.
Similarly, if a bookkeeping or tax accounting business develops a reputation for overselling clients’ ability to claim expenses from HM Revenue and Customs (equivalent of Inland Revenue), causing those clients to be audited and slapped with a back-tax bill years later, it would probably not be much fun getting into a debate with Neidle on LinkedIn! When it comes to complying with individual and company tax obligations, it’s best avoid picking up any bad habits.
Zahawi matter
Nadhim Zahawi is, or was, a household name in the UK. We suspect that most Kiwis have never heard of him so for context Zahawi’s Wikipedia page is here.
A HMRC investigation into Zahiwi’s tax affairs resulted in a settlement which included payment of a seven figure penalty. We won’t distract you with the details, except to note that Neidle had kicked up a stink.
Zahawi was represented by a lawyer, Ashley Hurst, from a firm called Osborne Clarke. Hurst and his client saw Neidle as a troublemaker and sent him a scary letter.
But Neidle wasn’t scared. He posted the letter on LinkedIn. Because we’re not tax boffins we won’t distract you with its contents, but refer to a Guardian article much later, dated 21 December 2024.
Hurst was fined £60,000 and ordered to pay £250,000 costs by the Solicitor’s Disciplinary Authority, which stopped short of finding his communications to be a SLAPP.
Most lawyers send scary letters on behalf of their clients threatening to bring proceedings, including defamation, without incident. What did Hurst do wrong?
He sent a defamation threat, unremarkable in itself. However:
Giving evidence to the disciplinary panel [the previous] Monday, Neidle said he took Hurst’s email to mean he could not publish the fact that he received a message from [Zahawi’s] lawyers ordering him to retract a claim and that “there would be serious consequences if I did”.
…
Neidle said the email had been headed “confidential” and “without prejudice”.
…
Neidle eventually published both the email and the letter from Hurst, despite the warnings. He said the publication of the communications had brought a “great deal” of attention to Zahawi’s tax affairs.
Streisand Effect
The Streisand effect according to Wikipedia is an unintended consequence of attempts to hide, remove, or censor information, where the effort instead increases public awareness of the information. It is an example of psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware that some information is being kept from them, they are significantly more motivated to acquire and spread it.
Causing a Streisand effect is unfortunate, but usually not a disciplinary matter for a lawyer. Where Hurst crossed the line was threatening “serious consequences” if the original defamation threat was not kept secret. By another lawyer. Oops.
Usually the recipient of the pre-action letter is inclined to keep it quiet due to their own contribution to the dispute. Lawyers are generally good at drafting pre-action letters that withstand public scrutiny (with attachments including screenshots and a narrative around how such communications are defamatory or otherwise harmful) just in case the recipient decides to disseminate it. Leighton Associates received a couple of letters in early 2020, which we attribute, at least partly, to rookie errors on our part.
But Hurst picked the wrong person to threaten, and the wrong type of threat to make, and he got nailed.
Tristam Price, Editor
Te Rangahau ture Mahi me te tari Purongo
Comments