that the amount under discussion was very small compared to the amount SR had already contributed in defense of the industry.
DH, RV and JA, explained at length and in various ways the difficulty with this approach as they saw it.
Two different analogies were given to try to get ANH's point across: a) you would want to see a house before you contracted to buy it; b) you would want to see the bride before you married her.
RV, for example, wanted to know even general information such as had NAHS prepared witness statements, how far had they gone on Article 95, etc? However NAHS was not prepared to offer any information. On no account would NAHS release any information on the state of its FSD challenge unless prior to such disclosure a binding agreement was reached between the parties as to how ANH was to be allowed to join in and they paid monies up front.
What RP, MA and PA did say was that if ANH did buy in to the group, it would then play a part in "building the house" or "making the bride!" RP indicated "for all we know, we may run wholly with the ANH case, who was to say?" A consensus was reached that this approach may allow the running of the best possible case, which would be an amalgamation of all possible arguments.
PA made the point that if ANH were to throw its funds in to a joint action this would be hugely welcomed by the industry and "all the negative views of ANH in the industry would be dispelled."
The amount of the ANH contribution was discussed and DH explained that of the £80k ANH had raised, a significant sum was still outstanding in legal fees and RV and himself were in fact many months behind in their pay. RV stated that Jeremy had yet to be paid anything at all. DH explained that the entire balance of the £80,000, which had been raised by ANH, could be used to fund a legal challenge only on a "fire sale basis" in so far as that would mean that nothing else got paid. ANH was prepared to do that if necessary but as the budget for the NAHS challenge was far smaller for Phase I and one did not get to Phase 2 (ie the Reference to the European Court of Justice) unless Phase 1 was successful, there seemed no point or indeed reasonableness in ANH having to "clear the cupboards bare" at this point in time as a price for entry into the NAHS action.
PA readily accepted that ANH needed to pay its bills and its staff and on the basis of the budget indicated by AL that the FSD would cost £50k incl. VAT for Phase 1, it was agreed that this would be the sum to consider for the negotiation and there was then much discussion as to how and when this sum should be put up by ANH.
Another key aspect of NAHS' proposal for AN H's entry was that ANH should lead the fundraising aspect (because it seemed to them that this was ANH's main strength) and all monies raised by ANH, from the date it joined the NAHS action for the legal challenge, should go straight in to the Irwin Mitchell account to be used for legal fees and media related to the campaign.
RV, JA and DH explained that whilst it was acceptable in principle that monies specifically raised for the legal challenge should go into the general pot it was essential that it be understood that ANH had operational costs for continuing activities relating to FSD which need to be covered. Additionally, ANH had other related projects underway (for example its extensive lobbying campaign in Brussels and its activities in other EU countries) in addition to the legal challenge for which it had been raising monies and accordingly it would continue to