A legal bod at the FT has written a nice little article about Truss's letter, in which he concludes as follows:
"There seem many other problems with the letter (subject to the missing second page).
It sets no deadline.
It sets out no ultimatum.
It asks for no undertakings.
It does not set out what relief or remedies will be sought if Starmer does not comply.
It is a cease-and-desist letter that fails even to say what would happen if Starmer does not cease or desist.
It is a weak litigation letter - about as weak a letter as could be sent in the circumstances.
Of course, regardless of the legalistic and technical points above, it would be open to Starmer to take the letter as complaining of statements of fact, and if Truss sues, he could then go to court to establish that Truss did indeed, as a matter of fact, “crash the economy”.
This would not be in Truss’s interests. But that would be the serious risk she would have to take if she sincerely wanted to litigate. And then she would be likely to crash her own legal case."
"There seem many other problems with the letter (subject to the missing second page).
It sets no deadline.
It sets out no ultimatum.
It asks for no undertakings.
It does not set out what relief or remedies will be sought if Starmer does not comply.
It is a cease-and-desist letter that fails even to say what would happen if Starmer does not cease or desist.
It is a weak litigation letter - about as weak a letter as could be sent in the circumstances.
Of course, regardless of the legalistic and technical points above, it would be open to Starmer to take the letter as complaining of statements of fact, and if Truss sues, he could then go to court to establish that Truss did indeed, as a matter of fact, “crash the economy”.
This would not be in Truss’s interests. But that would be the serious risk she would have to take if she sincerely wanted to litigate. And then she would be likely to crash her own legal case."
