Appointment of DFDS and legal costs (FOI)

Request 687381857

​Question 1

In terms of the appoint of DFDS as the ferry operator how much was paid in legal fees to external law firms up to the point at which it was agreed to give the contact to DFDS?

Question 2

Which law firms were engaged in Question 1 above?

Question 3 

Brittany Ferries bought a legal case against The Minister Sustainable Economic Development (Deputy Morel). DFDS was not a party to the legal case but was represented in Court by an advocate. Did the Jersey Government pay the legal costs of DFDS in this matter?

Question 4 

How much was paid in legal fees by the Government to defend the legal case (Question 3 refers) and the appeal and to which law firms were the fees paid?

Response

1. Legal advice was procured using the Crown Advocate rates available through the Law Officer’s Department. The sum of legal fees incurred as part of the tender process are commercially sensitive therefore Article 33 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied.

2. DWF Law LLP

3. The Government of Jersey has not contributed towards any legal fees incurred by DFDS.

4. Part of this question has been answered previously. Please see:

Kirsten Morel legal fees payment (FOI)​

​Government of Jersey contracted with Brick Court Chambers, DWF Law LLP and Ardent Chambers. Both the total cost and their constituent parts are commercially sensitive, therefore, Article 33 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied.

Article applied

Article 33 - Commercial interests

Information is qualified exempt information if –

(a) it constitutes a trade secret; or

(b) its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of a person (including the scheduled public authority holding the information).

Public Interest test

Article 33(b) of the Freedom of Information Law allows an authority to refuse a request for information where its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of a person (including the scheduled public authority holding the information). 

Whilst it is accepted that the public may have an interest in the requested information, it is considered that releasing this information could affect the commercial interests of the suppliers and the Government of Jersey.​

​Internal Review Request

Dear Sirs

I wish to appeal against your decision to decline to provide a detailed response to my enquiry under the above reference.

The grounds for my appeal are that it is the the public's interest to receive details of the legal fees paid in the defence of the claim effectively made against the Government of Jersey.

Accordingly i look forward to receiving a detailed response to my enquiry.

Internal Review Response 

This internal review has been conducted by an official of appropriate seniority who has not been involved in the original decision. As part of their review, they will be expected to understand the reasons behind the original response, impartially determine whether the response should be revised, and how so, considering the request and the information held, any relevant exemptions, or other relevant matters under the Law.  

The Internal Review Panel was asked to review the original response and confirm the following: 

Does the FOI request relate to a body to which the Law applies, or information held by a body covered by the Law? 

If the answer is no, all the other questions are not applicable.   

Further questions if above is a yes:   

1. Was the right information searched for and reviewed? 

2. Was the information supplied appropriately?

3. Was information appropriately withheld in accordance with the articles applied and were the public interest test/ prejudice test properly applied? 

Following discussion, it was agreed by the Panel that:

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Yes

The panel have reviewed the original response and have upheld the original decision of the Scheduled Public Authority and concluded that the articles applied were done so correctly.