Scargill takes on NUM in court battle
Former miners' leader Arthur Scargill's legal fight over financial perks continues today.
Friday 17th February 2012
Former miners' leader Arthur Scargill's legal fight over financial perks continues today.
Mr Scargill is claiming damages of up to £50,000 from the union's Yorkshire Area Trust Fund over his employment with them from 2002 to December last year.
He claims he is entitled to payments relating to mobile and domestic telephone costs and a contribution towards the cost of a new car of more than £15,000.
Under cross examination in court on Thursday Mr Scargill was probed about the level of work he did for the trustees of the fund. Barrister James Laddie, representing the NUM, said there were months between his assignments and the actual amount of work he did was minimal.
He said it was surprising that Mr Scargill's name did not appear in minutes of YATF meetings and some trustees were not aware he worked for the trust.
Mr Scargill denied this and told the court he was the hardest-working official in the history of the union and keeping minutes was not his responsibility.
He said he worked six days a week, compiled evidence and skeleton arguments for several high-profile legal disputes involving the NUM and had acted as the key witness for the union in those cases - including at the disciplinary hearing involving Raleys Solicitors. He also prepared briefing notes and drafted union rule books.
"Most people who know me and saw me will know I spent more hours undertaking work for the Yorkshire area of the NUM, probably than anybody else in history."
He said a car was essential for him to be able to fulfil his duties properly. But Mr Laddie said: "You didn't have to travel much in relation to to work done with the YATF."
Mr Scargill said he regularly travelled to Allerton Bywater, Rossington and Maltby to work with miners' welfares.
Payments towards Mr Scargill's telephone costs were stopped in April 2010 and in December 2010 he was offered £50 towards a car. He claims he was entitled to £15,220.
He is seeking damages and costs, including £14,556 towards a new car.
The case continues.




