Boris Johnson wasted thousands of pounds of public money by ignoring formal advice to pay off a special adviser who was escorted out of Downing Street following a clash with Dominic Cummings. Documents released on Tuesday show that the prime minister overruled the advice of the civil service’s chief executive, John Manzoni, in March that the government should seek a settlement with Sonia Khan, a former adviser to the then chancellor, Sajid Javid. Johnson refused to listen to the advice, which meant that the case continued until November, driving up legal costs. Khan was eventually paid between £50,000 and £100,000 in November, days after Cummings announced he would be standing down from Downing Street at the end of this year. Legal sources estimate that the total costs including Khan’s payoff could be nearly £200,000. It has also emerged that Cummings received a pay rise of about £40,000 for his role as Johnson’s top adviser, official figures show. The prime minister’s top aide, who is preparing to officially leave his job on 18 December, is paid between £140,000 and £144,999. It is an increase on his £95,000 to £99,999 salary, which was published in last December’s figures.
Khan was Javid’s media adviser when in August 2019 she was escorted by police from No 10 after Cummings accused her of misleading him over her contact with individuals close to the former chancellor Philip Hammond. She denied any inappropriate contact. Javid was furious to learn about her dismissal after the event. In a letter sent on 3 March, Manzoni wrote: “Given the ongoing expenditure of defending the case and the potential costs that a court may award, it is my advice taking account of legal and financial analysis, that a further negotiation should be carried out to seek to avoid litigation.” Johnson replied by letter the following day. “The legal position is clear that the prime minister can withdraw consent for the appointment of any special adviser. That is the reason for the termination of employment and I am content for a reasons letter to be issued to the individual setting that out. “I do not believe that individuals should receive more compensation than they are entitled to under their contract and therefore I believe this claim should be tested in litigation.” Counsel for Khan argued that what Cummings had done personally, rather than just as an agent of the employer, was actionable. He was expected to be summoned as a witness. Khan, 29, was accused by Cummings of lying about her conversations with Hammond’s former staff member Poppy Trowbridge. It is understood Khan was asked to hand over her work phone, and also presented her personal phone to Cummings. The government finally paid off Khan in November after a five-day hearing for the unfair dismissal case had been set for this month. Dave Penman, the head of the FDA union, which backed Khan’s claim, said: “This is an extraordinary exchange of letters, demonstrating the depth to which the prime minister would go to pursue a vindictive agenda against a special adviser they knew was unfairly dismissed. “The prime minister was happy to waste taxpayers’ money rather than admit he was wrong, even though he knew that by issuing a ministerial direction, his callousness and profligacy with public finances would ultimately be revealed. It was only when faced with the cold reality of having to give sworn evidence in court that they chose to settle.”