TL;DR The law firm was also involved in the disastrous ruling of the CJEU which banned the publication of beneficial ownership registries. The high court has refused to allow the case to proceed...
TL;DR
It became clear in the course of Ms Webster’s litigation [in the UK high court] that her claim was funded by an anonymous third party which was running “an international strategic data protection litigation campaign” seeking to block the implementation of tax and transparency measures
The high court has refused to allow the case to proceed without the plaintiff revealing the identity of who is funding the decision, citing
Funder identity goes, on HMRC’s case, to the core issue of whether this is a genuine private law claim, albeit a test case, generously funded by a disinterested and publicity-shy benefactor with a commitment to human rights, or whether the court’s processes are being abused by an unregulated attack, on a government department exercising statutory public functions in the public interest, made in the service of agencies whose own commitment to the UK public interest, and the interests of justice, is unapparent.
TL;DR
The law firm was also involved in the disastrous ruling of the CJEU which banned the publication of beneficial ownership registries.
The high court has refused to allow the case to proceed without the plaintiff revealing the identity of who is funding the decision, citing