This is my line in the sand!

The Nana's take a field

In August 2014, under the title of ‘The Nanas’, a group which Tina Louise Rothery openly admits she was a founder member of, 26 people, using the Section 6 notice commonly used by squatters, occupied a field on Preston New Road to protest against hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and Cuadrilla Resources Limited's plans to frack Lancashire.

Following the three week protest Cuadrilla sought an injunction to prevent further protests in the area and, at a hearing on 28 August 2014, when Ms Rothery requested an extension to oppose the injunction, it was agreed the case would be adjourned .

Finally in October 2014 the adjourned case was to be heard for the last time. However, on 08 October 2014, writing for Drill or Drop, Ruth Hayhurst reported that whilst the judge upheld the interim injunction and extended it unopposed in Manchester High Court he rejected Cuadrilla’s application for legal costs of £54,000 against Ms Rothery ordering a separate judge should assess the matter.

On submitting her defence Ms Rothery refused to reveal her financial details and was subsequently charged with contempt of court and ordered to pay Cuadrilla’s legal costs amounting to £55,432, or face 14 days in prison.

On Friday 24 June 2016, prior to a hearing at Blackpool Crown Court at which Cuadrilla were attempting to claim in excess of £55k in costs from her, Ms Rothery gave a speech to a crowd of over 150 supporters during which she declared “I will not pay, even if I could, now or ever. This is my line in the sand.”

Following a court summons a hashtag, I am Tina Rothery, attributed to George Brown aka Silver Fox, began to go viral with solidarity images and messages from individual campaigners and groups, including Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, flooding anti-fracking related social media sites.

Friends of the Earth send support to Tina Louise Rothery

The Green Party also issued a statement, “The North West Green Party expresses its unwavering support and admiration for Tina Rothery and her unswerving stance against the fracking industry. The party has been enriched by having a member of the calibre of Tina. Her ethics, campaigning, enthusiasm and vision for a better, greener future for us all continue to be the inspiration for many.

We support her moral stance against the short-sighted dogmatism of this government where they put transitory gains for the few in place of the common good. We therefore support her refusal to accede to the demand for costs in her current legal action.”

Ms Rothery’s fate was not known until Friday 09 December 2016 when, at a private hearing at Preston Combined Court during which Ms Rothery represented herself, Cuadrilla decided not to pursue costs and the contempt of court charge was dropped. The crowd of around 500 people waiting outside subsequently heard Ms Rothery say “Cuadrilla had “foolishly shown their hand taking a grandmother” into court, and said the potential bad publicity toward the company could have caused them to drop all pursuit of costs.”

However, all was not as seemed as the Nanas’ began to implode and questions began to be asked about a court case Ms Rothery had stated was to be an open case but instead was held behind closed doors.

On 21 May 2018 Cuadrilla, along with farmers with land adjacent or close to the well site, filed papers to the High Court requesting an injunction for the Preston New Road site to be heard on 31 May 2018 and it was here, in black and white for all to see, in those injunction papers submitted to the court, the history of what actually happened that day behind closed doors when Ms Rothery walked out of court a free woman with no costs to pay and no charges to answer.

On the day of the final hearing Ms Rothery, representing herself, (it was subsequently learned during a conversation with Mr Simon Pook of Lizars the solicitors firm had prepared a file of evidence to support the appeal but Ms Rothery refused to let them use it) a win was celebrated outside the court with fellow campaigners. On reporting the result The Guardian described the win as “Anti-fracking activist spared jail after refusing to pay court £55,000” but we have subsequently learned from the transcript of the day this was not so.

Judge Hodge QC delivered a further extemporary judgement on the extemporary judgement first delivered on 28 August 2014, page 80 of the pre-injunction papers. During his judgement the following was recorded:

Point 3, page 80, states Judge Hodge QC finding that “As a result of my order, in addition to the persons unknown, the order was directed to person entering or remaining on the land at Little Plumpton and at Roseacre, and also to the third defendant, Tina Rothery, who had put herself forward to be added as the third defendant to the claim. Ms Rothery had instructed solicitors in London, Harrison Grant, who had appointed a Mr Simon Pook, of Robert Lizars Solicitors, to act as Harrison Grant's agents; and it was Mr Pook who had represented Ms Rothery at the hearing before me. It was on his application, on behalf of Ms Rothery, for an adjournment that I had granted interim injunctive relief over to the return date of today; and had made the consequential case management directions, including provision for the service of evidence by the third defendant and any other person affected by the order, by 4 o'clock on 18 September, with provision for the claimants to file and serve any evidence in reply by 4 o'clock on 2 October 2014”

Point 4, page 80, sees a further note from Judge Hodge QC, “In the event, Ms Rothery has not served any evidence in opposition to the continuation of the injunction order, and nor has any other person affected by the order sought to do so.”

Point 6, page 81 follows with; “Following on from the non-service of any evidence by Ms Rothery, I am told that on 22 September Ms Rothery's solicitors had indicated that they would not oppose the continuation of the existing injunction on a time-limited basis; They suggested a period of 2 years. They had also indicated that there should be no order as to costs; That proposal was confirmed in a "without prejudice save as to costs" letter written on 3 September, and then in an open letter of 22 September 2014.”

In point 9, page 81, Mr Tom Roscoe (of counsel) …“makes the point that Ms Rothery has raised no objection to the continuation of the injunction, and indeed, accepted that it should be continued for a period of 2 years, which, as Ms Rothery's counsel acknowledged, was a period rather longer than that presently proposed by the claimants.”

Point 13, page 83, confirms that costs and damages being sought against Ms Rothery would not be pursued with a statement that included... “the claimants have now taken the view that it would be more efficient for any damages claim to be started afresh.”

No new claim to recoup damages was ever brought by Cuadrilla or interested parties, despite Cuadrilla’s counsel insisting that had Ms Rothery not asked for an extension at the original court hearing and followed the request by presenting no evidence to the court the costs attached to the injunction would have been considerably less.