Labour’s Internal Feud and the Mounting Legal Costs

Labour Party could face a substantial legal bill as a consequence of a long-standing internal feud that dates back to Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. The feud involves allegations of leaked documents and has resulted in significant legal expenses for the party.

Labour has accused individuals including Karie Murphy, former chief of staff to Jeremy Corbyn, and Seumas Milne, former communications director, as well as three other former staff members, of leaking a controversial document shortly after Sir Keir Starmer assumed leadership in April 2020. The leaked document contained private emails and messages, with several allegations, including claims that anti-Corbyn head office staff undermined the 2017 election campaign and that efforts to address antisemitism within the party were hindered by certain staff members who opposed the leadership at that time.

The legal pursuit by Labour has already cost the party nearly £1.4 million. Legal documents submitted to the High Court reveal that a further £868,000 could be expended on the case if it proceeds to a full trial. Initially, the full hearing was expected to be scheduled for either early summer or early autumn the following year. However, Labour has requested the court to delay it until at least February 2025, which is after the last possible date for a general election.

Labour’s argument for postponement is based on the claim that their small legal team would find it challenging to prepare for a court case while also dealing with their responsibilities during an election period. They argue that it would be unfair and inappropriate for the case to proceed at that time. However, statements from two of the five individuals Labour is taking action against, submitted to the court through their legal representatives, assert that a delay until 2025 would be detrimental to them.

One of the former staff members, Georgie Robertson, expressed that she felt as though her life was on hold and believed it would be difficult to secure employment until her name was cleared. Another former staffer, Harry Hayball, complained that the legal proceedings were causing him extreme stress. Their lawyers argued that Labour was attempting to avoid an embarrassing court case before an election.

The issue of timing will be determined on December 5th when the parties involved will attend a costs and case management conference at the High Court. This marks the fifth such meeting in the ongoing dispute. If Labour were to lose the case, they could face an even larger bill, as the former staffers’ legal team would push for the party to cover their costs.

According to the documents presented in the High Court, the former staff members anticipate an estimated £1.1 million in future costs, although Labour believes this estimate is overly high. Additionally, this estimate does not include the costs incurred thus far, meaning the final bill could be even higher.

Despite their involvement in drafting the document, all five individuals have consistently denied leaking its contents. They assert that they are confident of winning their case because a party investigation, conducted by an external investigator, failed to identify the source of the leak. Furthermore, the broader inquiry led by Martin Forde KC could not determine the culprit. The former staff members argue that 15 other people had access to the document, and the party has not pursued anyone beyond those directly employed in the leader’s office or Labour’s headquarters.

Three of the five individuals – Georgie Robertson, Harry Hayball, and Laura Murray – were also investigated by the criminal investigations unit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which closed its case due to insufficient evidence. The Labour Party contends that a civil case would be decided based on the lower “balance of probabilities” test rather than the ICO’s higher “beyond reasonable doubt” standard.

While the party has attracted new sources of financial support and some donors who had suspended contributions during the Corbyn era have returned, there are concerns within the party’s national executive about the growing legal expenses. A Labour spokesperson stated that the party had conducted a comprehensive and thorough investigation following the leak and remains confident in the case it has presented to the court.

This ongoing legal battle highlights the challenges and financial implications associated with internal disputes within political parties. The resolution of this case will have significant consequences for both the individuals involved and the Labour Party as a whole.