George Foulkes resigned as a patron of the Ethnic Minorities Law Centre after it backed Sally Kellerman’s £10,000 legal claim over being refused permission to bring her dog into the Bernera Community Cafe. The move turns a local access dispute into a public row over who the law centre chose to support and how it handled the case.
Kellerman, the niece and adoptive daughter of the late Hollywood actress and MASH star Sally Kellerman, made the claim after the cafe refused her dog entry. The case had already run up legal costs of more than £7000 before Foulkes stepped away.
George Foulkes and the law centre
Foulkes, the former Scotland Office minister, said he resigned because Kellerman was “not an ethnic minority person” and described it as a “provocative case causing so many problems for the local community”. He also said: “I have resigned in protest at their support for her, and also their failure to keep patrons informed of their work.”
The resignation matters because it puts the law centre’s judgment under scrutiny, not just its litigation strategy. A patron stepping down in public is a rare escalation for a dispute that began with a single refusal at the cafe door.
Bernera Development Trust mistake
The Ethnic Minorities Law Centre first launched a court challenge against the Bernera Development Trust, then admitted in court that the action had been directed against the wrong organisation. It later brought a claim against the community association that runs the cafe.
That sequence left the case with a second front: the dispute is no longer only about whether Kellerman should have been allowed to bring her dog inside, but also about how the claim was framed from the outset. More than £7000 had already gone on legal costs by the time the organisation corrected course.
Donald MacKinnon letter
Colin Lancaster, chief executive of SLAB, defended the approach in a letter to Labour MP Donald MacKinnon. “On the concern that proceedings were initially raised against the wrong defender, our role is not to determine questions of fact, evidence, law or liability – including the identity of the proper defender,” he wrote.
He added: “Where relevant representations are made to us … information is sought from the assisted person’s solicitor.” Lancaster also said: “It is not our role to independently investigate far less determine the legal basis of a case, or verify the information provided in support of the merits of an application.”
His final line was blunt: “All potentially relevant information provided to SLAB has been considered, including representations about the original defender, the subsequent change of defender, the applicant’s financial circumstances and the issues raised about the legal basis and prospects of the action.” For readers watching this row, the practical takeaway is simple: the claim has already forced a change in defender, a patron has walked, and the costs have climbed before the underlying dog-ban dispute is settled.
