Labour acted in ‘bad faith’ when suspending Jeremy Corbyn, High Court hears

Jeremy Corbyn leaving his Islington home on Sunday morning
PA

Former opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn argues Labour acted in “bad faith” when suspending him from the party, the first round of his legal battle to be reinstated has heard.  

The Islington North MP was first suspended from Labour in October last year when he said the scale of anti-Semitism in the party was “dramatically overstated for political reasons”.

The comments came in response to a damning report by the Equality and Human Rights Commision, which found Labour under Corbyn’s leadership had broken the law by failing to prevent “acts of harassment and discrimination”.

Corbyn, who served as leader between 2015 and 2020, was reinstated by Labour’s National Executive Committee after clarifying his remarks, but new leader Sir Keir Starmer then blocked him from sitting under the party whip.  

Corbyn is considering a legal challenge to the decision, and went to the High Court today seeking the disclosure of documents said to be relevant to a court fight.  

His barrister, Christopher Jacobs, said Corbyn believes he was forced out when MPs including Dame Margaret Hodge put public pressure on the party’s leadership.  

“A series of members and MPs were dissatisfied with the result of the NEC decision, and contacted the leader of the Labour party”, he said. “This is the third party intervention which impermissibly led to a breach of contact.

“Some individuals have given interviews to say the second decision to suspend enabled those individuals to remain within the party.”

He argued Corbyn is unable to mount his case and battle back against criticism of him without fuller access to documents, including minutes of discussions about his suspension.  

He believes a deal with struck with the party, that he would be allowed back into the fold after a clarification of his initial remarks on the anti-Semitism row.  

However the party denies any agreement was struck, and says it was not put down in writing.  

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

“My client is being attacked in the media, he understands that the party acted in bad faith, but he is unable to respond to the attacks. 

He seeks to resolve the matter in court but is unable to do so until there has been disclosure.”

Rachel Crasnow, for Labour, countered that Corbyn’s case was not an exceptional one to warrant further disclosure of documents before a claim has been formally lodged.  

“This is a straight forward contract claim based on two agreements”, she said, suggesting Corbyn should “get on” with filing the court papers to initiate a claim. 

Judge Lisa Sullivan heard argument during a three-and-a-half hour hearing today, and will deliver her judgment at a later date.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in