Judge who gave Thames Water £3bn bailout was partner at law firm who USED TO WORK FOR THEM

High Court judge Thomas Leech who approved the Thames Water £3bn bailout was previously a partner at a law firm where – yes, you guessed it – Thames Water was one of its clients. However, while there is no indication that Leech had any involvement in Thames, what the story does show is the two degrees of separation that exist between the justice system and the corporate world.

Thames Water: leeching off the public

As the Canary has been documenting, Thames Water has become one of the most notorious companies in the UK. Firstly, recent data reveals that over half of its 351 sewage treatment plants lack the capacity to adequately process incoming wastewater, leading to the discharge of untreated effluent into rivers. Specifically, 181 plants are failing to meet required treatment volumes, with some operating at only a third of their necessary capacity.

Then, Thames Water’s management has come under criticism for its handling of environmental and financial issues. The company has been fined £18 million by Ofwat for breaching dividend rules, having paid out dividends totaling £195.5 million during periods of underperformance. That is, while we were suffering from leaks and rocketing bills, Thames Water was giving its shareholders money AND paying bosses bonuses.

However, most significantly the company is grappling with a substantial debt burden, currently standing at £18 billion. It was this that Thames Water went to the High Court for. As the Canary’s Hannah Sharland previously wrote:

On Tuesday 18 February, the mainstream media was awash with the news that the High Court has greenlit a £3bn bailout for the debt-ridden sewage company.

Splashed across the coverage, they invariably referred to it as a “rescue loan” or “lifeline” for the company. In reality however, it’s an obscene handout to a corporation with coffers aplenty to pay stonking fat cat bonuses, but never quite enough to mop up after its own mess.

There was widespread outrage over the decision. People were calling for Thames Water to be nationalised; they were saying that the £3bn was just delaying the company’s inevitable collapse, and of course there’s also the issue of it wanting to increase people’s bills by 59%.

Judge Leech: it’s all so predictable

People were also shocked that the judge in the case, Thomas Leech, granted the Thames Water bailout in the first place. However, a tweet from Damian in Brighton might go some way to explaining why:

Justice Leech carried out legal work for @thameswater, so should have recused himself from ruling on whether the company should be nationalised. He ruled that it is better for the company to be privately owned rather than nationalised when that is not true. He is a liar. pic.twitter.com/y6u5iTOfOl

— Damian from Brighton (@damian_from) February 18, 2025

So, the Canary dug into whether or not Leech has any links to Thames Water. And indeed he does – albeit indirectly.

Leech was a partner at law firm Herbert Smith Freehills from 2014 to 2021. During that time, the firm advised a consortium of companies in its bid to provide infrastructure for the Thames Tideway Tunnel. This, of course, was being paid for by Thames Water customers through their bills.

However, Herbert Smith Freehills was also listed by Thames Water in 2018 as being on:

a new legal panel of five specialist law firms… the panel will compete for major projects, which sit outside of the Managed Legal Services arrangement.

So, Thames Water essentially gave Leech’s previous law firm the chance to bid for work.

Moreover, his previous law firm was involved in work for other water companies too or companies that wanted to buy them out; namely Severn Trent and Sutton and East Surrey respectively. In the case of Severn Trent, Herbert Smith Freehills was its sole legal adviser for many years.

Thames Water: a capitalist mindset

So, while Leech and his firm were not exactly in bed with Thames Water. there is a link. Moreover, Herbert Smith Freehills had a significant role in the privatised water industry in the UK. It is this which is the problem.

As 3VB noted about Leech’s summing up:

The Judge concluded, that while he “might have been tempted” to refuse to sanction the restructuring plan given the costs of the interim finance and fees, ultimately after “taking into account the public interest” he would nevertheless sanction the restructuring plan [anyway].

That is, Leech recognised the public anger and also potential consequences of Thames Water’s bailout. However, he chose to err on the side of a ‘corporate-first’ mindset, anyway. Leech notably shifted the blame onto government for making this possible via “public policy”.

Moreover, on Wednesday 19 February Leech then refused a application by so-called Class B creditors – smaller shareholders, to you and me. It was for them to be able to vote on Thames Water’s restructuring plan. This once again shows his preference for corporate power.

Leech’s siding with the corporate world over the public interest is becoming the norm in the British judicial system. From extreme sentences for climate activists who disrupt businesses to extreme sentences for those trying to stop a genocide by disrupting businesses – the justice system no longer works in favour of you and me.

It is this mindset which is at fault. It is one bred at corporate firms like Herbert Smith Freehill. It’s then passed onto their barristers like Leech. This mindset then seeps into the judiciary.

Consequently, there is now little separation between the UK courts and the business world. Ultimately, it will always be those that inhabit the latter that win. Like Thames Water just has.

Featured image via the Canary