Categories
Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Good Law Project

Good Law Project

The Good Law Project is a UK campaigning organisation that uses litigation, investigations and public mobilisation to challenge government decisions and other concentrations of power.

We use the law to stop hate and bring hope – injustice is not inevitable

Good Law Project

Founded in January 2017 by tax barrister Jolyon Maugham KC, the Good Law Project Limited was established as a company limited by guarantee under English law (Company Registration Number 10556197). The Registered office address is 3 East Point High Street, Seal, Sevenoaks, Kent, United Kingdom, TN15 0EG

The Good Law Project is a not-for-profit company that has never been a registered charity. Jo Maugham deliberately chose this form to secure the public-interest features of a charity with no ability to pay dividends and an asset lock preventing assets being transferred at undervalue whilst remaining outside the regulatory reach of the Charity Commission, which the organisation has described as imposing “moving political guardrails.”

The Good Law Project is widely regarded as left-wing / progressive in orientation.

Jolyon Maugham KC

Jolyon Toby Dennis Maugham KC (born 1st July 1971) is the founder and executive director. Born in London and raised largely in New Zealand, he attended Wellington High School before returning to the UK. He graduated with a first-class LLB in European Legal Studies from Durham University (Hatfield College) in 1995, studied at KU Leuven in Belgium, and later completed an MA at Birkbeck, University of London.

Jo Maugham specialised in taxation law, practised from Devereux Chambers, and was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2015. He has advised both Labour and Conservative politicians on tax policy and written for national newspapers.

In 2023 he published the Sunday Times bestseller Bringing Down Goliath. He left full-time practice at the Bar around the end of 2020 to focus on the organisation and has stated that his salary is capped at the level of a backbench MP.

He is an Honorary Professor at the University of Durham and remains the dominant public face of the group. Supporters view him as a determined advocate for accountability; critics regard him as a polarising campaigner whose messaging about case outcomes has sometimes drawn formal complaints.

Mission and Methods

The Good Law Project stated aims are to hold power to account, protect the environment and ensure “no one is left behind.” In practice this has involved judicial reviews, procurement challenges, environmental cases and campaigns on issues including protest rights, media regulation and transgender healthcare.

The organisation combines court action with investigative work and crowdfunding-driven public campaigns.

The 2026 Move to Jersey

On the 8th May 2026 the Good Law Project changed its ownership structure. The GLP announced that Jo Maugham had been replaced as owner by a Jersey “purpose” trust holding the membership interest in the UK company.

The operating company remains registered in England (still company 10556197), UK-resident for tax purposes, subject to the same articles and asset lock, and still unable to declare dividends.

The stated reason was that English law does not recognise non-charitable purpose trusts, while Jersey law does. The change was presented as completing the original design by making the organisation exist for a purpose rather than being owned by an individual and also allowing a future multi-trustee board.

In the short term the sole trustee is a company owned by Jo Maugham, who remains the person with significant control.

Controversies Around the Jersey Restructuring

The move attracted accusations of hypocrisy. The organisation and Maugham had previously criticised offshore arrangements and tax havens. Critics highlighted the optics of using a Jersey structure while campaigning against secrecy and elite financial arrangements.

The group maintains there is no tax advantage and that the purpose is structural and regulatory.

Funding and Financials

The vast majority of funding of the Good Law Project comes from regular and one-off donations by members of the public, which the organisation says keeps it independent. It also receives grants and high-value donations from supporters including the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, Lund Trust, Avaaz, 38 Degrees, Necessity and Dale Vince (Ecotricity).

For the year ended 31 January 2025, total income was approximately £4.44 million (down slightly from £4.65 million the previous year). Roughly 70–80% came from regular and general donations, with the balance from crowdfunding, grants and other sources.

Expenditure was around £4.67 million, producing a modest deficit. Cash at bank stood at about £4.25 million and net assets at roughly £4.20 million.

The Good Law Project maintains a Legal Defence Fund (around £850,000 at that date) to cover potential adverse costs. Staff costs form a significant part of spending; average headcount has been in the mid-30s in recent years. As a non-profit company limited by guarantee it does not pay corporation tax on its core activities. Full accounts and filings are available via the Companies House page for company 10556197.

Success Rate and Criticisms

The Good Law Project claims a positive outcome, defined as a full or partial legal win or a useful campaigning result in more than two-thirds of its cases. Its own assessments have typically shown roughly 45 per cent legal wins, around 20 per cent mixed results and 35 per cent losses among classifiable legal outcomes.

Independent observers have challenged these figures. Government data showed the organisation winning fewer matters than it lost or withdrew and paying substantially more in costs than it received. Critics argue that many claimed “wins” are minor procedural points or cases spun after clear defeats.

Analyses in The Critic, The Times and elsewhere have accused the group of exaggerating its record.

Bad Law Project? – The good, the bad, and the ugly of crowdfunding legal cases. The miseries of Maugham – What is the Good Law Project accomplishing?

Landmark Cases

Several Landmark Case are listed on the “Our Story” page of the Good Law Project.

In 2019 the Good Law Project supported the successful Supreme Court challenge to Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament. Earlier Brexit litigation (Miller on Article 50 and Wightman on revocation) established important constitutional principles.

During the pandemic it litigated the “VIP lane” for PPE contracts; the High Court ruled the lane itself unlawful. Environmental work produced a High Court win (with Friends of the Earth and ClientEarth) requiring the government to revise its net-zero strategy, plus a Supreme Court intervention on water-company sewage liability.

Later cases on Partygate, tax policy and transgender rights have been more mixed or unsuccessful.

Good Law Project and Professor Jason Arday

In July 2026 the Good Law Project published and promoted an open letter and petition in support of Cambridge University sociology professor Jason Arday, who faced allegations of plagiarism in his PhD thesis and other academic work, as well as questions about aspects of his personal biography and achievements.

The organisation described the claims as a “vile” or “right-wing smear campaign” and gathered thousands of signatures, including from politicians, academics and public figures (some of whom later withdrew their names).

Jason Arday resigned from Cambridge and Jesus College on the 5th August 2026; the Good Law Project hosted and published his resignation statement on its website.

After Jason Arday’s death on the 14th August 2026, the group launched a further campaign and petition calling for a public inquiry into alleged media harassment, arguing that intense press scrutiny had contributed to the tragedy and that racism played a role.

The Good Law Project has maintained that universities and journals had cleared Json Arday of wrongdoing, while critics have pointed to substantial evidence of textual overlap and disputed biographical claims, and questioned the Good Law Project’s involvement and framing of the case.

Summary

The Good Law Project has grown from a one-person crowdfunding vehicle into a professionally staffed organisation with multi-million-pound annual income and substantial cash reserves.

Its highest-profile successes remain the 2019 prorogation judgment and the PPE VIP-lane ruling.

The Good Law Project continues to attract strong support from donors who share its priorities and sharp criticism from those who question its methods, messaging, financial transparency and governance choices.

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?,Law Society, Law Commission, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Contra Mundum, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

[post_title] was last updated on the 26th August 2026

By Dom Watts

Dom Watts founded the Ministry of Injustice in July 2021. Dom is an IT Professional with 30+ years experience in Tier 1 Banking, Government, Defence, Healthcare and Global Blue Chips. Dom has no legal training and is not a lawyer but has previously consulted for a Magic Circle Law Firm. You can find Dom on X or Google.

Dom Watts publishes the Ministry of Injustice as a citizen journalist. The journalism exemption is detailed in the Data protection and journalism code of practice published by the ICO and Section 124 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of truth. Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of honest opinion. Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of public interest. Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the single publication rule.

Section 4a of The Limitation Act 1980 defines the time limit for actions for defamation or malicious falsehood as one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives the right to freedom of expression. "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

"Free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another." - Para 43 Scottow v CPS [2020] EWHC 3421 (Admin)

"Free speech is a fundamental common law right" - Para 21 R v Shayler [2002] UKHL 11 [2003] 1 AC 247 per Lord Bingham and Para 42 Phillips -v- Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2024] EWHC 32 (Admin)

Dom is a member of The Free Speech Union

“A key issue here is the need to distinguish between conduct which, however objectionable, does not justify invoking the criminal law and conduct which crosses the line and results in criminal liability" - Para 31 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

“Harassment is generally understood to involve improper oppressive and unreasonable conduct that is targeted at an individual and calculated to produce alarm and distress” - Para 38 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

"The behaviour said to amount to harassment must reach a level of seriousness passing beyond irritations, annoyances....The gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability" - Paras [40-44] Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB)

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything"

In 2002 Dom Watts was an unlikely consumer champion. The dad of three from Croydon took on the power and might of Kodak – and won...Dom on BBC Working Lunch

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent