Every week we receive emails from individuals trapped in a form of modern slavery. We asked the Government to help with new legislation but it has refused. Nor is the Independent Anti Slavery Commissioner able to act.

Last year we helped an individual sue an enormously valuable publisher for breaking the law by failing to pay minimum wage to interns. That publisher has formally admitted liability - but it continues to thumb the law by advertising for three month full time interns and offering only to pay expenses.

We have sued Uber for failing to pay what amounts to, we estimate, more than £1bn in unpaid VAT and interest. We also expect to bring proceedings against HMRC for failing to protect taxpayers against lost tax. 

We also know that climate change charities believe Big Oil companies are breaching their legal obligations - but are unable to act against them.

The common thread in these cases is the costs regime that applies if you want to use the law to hold Bad Money to account. In the Uber case the uncontradicted evidence was that we faced a £3 million bill if we took Uber to court and lost. 

This has an obvious chilling effect - the threat of insolvency is a significant barrier to the road to justice. We are unable to act to protect the rule of law. 

Yet last month the High Court said, in effect, that there is no public interest in holding Bad Money to account. You cannot get an order that limits your liability to costs - a so-called "protective costs order" - if your target is private corporations. 

We have grave concerns about the implications of the decision. It is an invitation to them to use the threat of costs liability to dodge legal accountability. And - as the examples above show - it jeopardises the rule of law. And these consequences, we believe, undermine popular consent to capitalism. And deliver populist uprisings.

Good Law Project has appealed against the decision. 

But we need your help. 

Even asking for a protective costs order cost us over £100,000 in adverse costs. It is, we believe, a nonsense that you have a six figure exposure to costs because you apply for an order protecting you against exposure to costs. But that is the order the court has made.

It is no longer safe to rely on Government to defend the law and protect the vulnerable from exploitation by bad money. And, if the High Court's decision goes unchallenged, public interest actors cannot do so either. The poor will be left to look out for themselves. 

This cannot stand. 

But we can't pursue an appeal unless we are able to bear the costs of losing. And it is for those alone that we crowdfund.

The case is for everyone who is not rich enough to stand up to Bad Money - and for everyone who has lost faith in the inclination of Government to protect the powerless. It is an absolutely fundamental access to justice point.