Full ruling over Corbyn legal "fishing" expedition revealed - The Jewish Chronicle

Jeremy Corbyn’s suspicion that Dame Margaret Hodge and the President of the Board of Deputies interfered in Labour’s disciplinary process over his suspension as a party MP “is speculation” and part of a “fishing” exercise on his part, a High Court judge has ruled.

Judge Lisa Sullivan also attached significance to the fact that Unite union chief Len McClsuskey and the Labour MP Jon Trickett – both acting as Mr Corbyn’s representatives in a meeting attended by Sir Keir Starmer and other members of the Leader's Office – failed to make any notes of an alleged deal they claim was agreed in which the former Labour leader would be able to return as a party MP.

“His representatives could have made notes but did not,” said the judge, commenting on Mr McCluskey and Mr Trickett’s insistence of an “oral” agreement over Mr Corbyn’s return.

“The fact that Mr Corbyn’s representatives did not make any notes but they believe the Labour Party did does not give rise in my judgment to the sort of asymmetry of control of documents which would mean pre-action disclosure was desirable.”

Handing down her judgement after refusing an application for disclosure of further Labour Party documents made by Mr Corbyn’s lawyers, Judge Lisa Sullivan referred to reports that Labour MP Dame Margaret and Marie van der Zyl, the Board’s president had contacted Sir Keir Starmer to express their anger at the decision to drop his suspension from the party last November.

Mr Corbyn was suspended on October 29 as a result of his response to the EHRC report into antisemitism. This was lifted 19 days later – but Sir Keir then announced his was removing the party whip from the former leader.

Master Sullivan said on Wednesday:” It is also alleged that there was political interference in the disciplinary process, which is improper and in bad faith.

“It is said that there are reports in the press that Dame Margaret Hodge MP and the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews contacted the Leader of the Opposition’s staff and that influenced the decision to suspend Mr Corbyn on the second occasion. It is said the disclosure sought will show this.”

Her ruling adds: “In respect of the documents which it is said will show third party interference in the decision, that is speculation based on press reporting. I have not been taken to any detail of the press reports referred to.

“It is said this includes documents sent from Dame Margaret Hodge MP and the President of the Board of British Jews.

“What, if any communication took place, whether it was in writing, what was said and whether it was taken into account are unknown. It seems to me that the request is indeed fishing.

“It is not appropriate for the court to allow a prospective litigant to review the documents to see if there is something that may be of use to them in advance of the litigation.”

At the earlier pre-trial application hearing on January 18, Mr Corbyn’s lawyer Christopher Jacobs had referenced a meeting held on October 30, which was attended by Sir Keir, his deputy Angela Rayner, chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, Unite’s Len McCluskey and Jon Trickett MP.

“My instructions are that meeting led to the agreed wording of the clarified statement being accepted as an acceptable outcome and an agreement that no further sanction was to be imposed,” said Mr Jacobs explained.

“Disclosure will enable (Corbyn) to say there was procedural unfairness and a breach of duty to act in good faith.”

In Wednesday’s ruling, the judge said:” The only way it is said that the dispute would be resolved or costs saved in respect of the oral agreement is if the documents show an agreement in the terms alleged by Mr Corbyn.

“I cannot make any judgment about what any documents might show and I take at face value the Labour Party’s case that there was no such agreement. I cannot say that there is a real prospect that disclosure would resolve or reduce the issues. That dispute is likely to remain after disclosure. “

Master Sullivan added:” The fact that Mr Corbyn’s representatives did not make any notes but they believe the Labour Party did does not give rise in my judgment to the sort of asymmetry of control of documents which would mean pre-action disclosure was desirable.

“His representatives could have made notes but did not. This is not a situation where one party was unable to document the oral agreement which might give rise to such asymmetry.”

Mr Corbyn will now be offered further legal advice on whether it is sensible to continue his legal bid to challenge his suspension in the High Court.

It is understood that Labour are to seek to recover their costs from the pre-trial application bid.