Labour staff breached party rules and legal duties by surreptitiously enabling the election of rivals of party candidates.

The party and its agents therefore breached its contract, duties and promises with members and its non-contractual pact with the voting public of the UK to try to get voted into government to put its manifesto into effect.

At stake is the democratic principle of party politics underlying the country’s social cohesion and integrity, namely that you have a choice of parties in a contest for power.

On the evidence, arguably a different government should have been in position ever since June 2017, the 2019 general election should not have occurred, and the enactment of the result of the EU referendum should have been done in a different manner.

The subversion of democracy that apparently has taken place is rather like gamblers getting a goalie to let in his team’s opponent’s goals.

Some who should have been MPs of some years' standing and others who have a story about 2017 to tell may be able to join the claim.

A dispassionate judgment will restore public confidence and get politics back on track.

The present position is that after 10 written decisions, mostly by Lord and Lady Justices in the Court of Appeal, including the Vice President, the court has refused to let the case got to trial.

Counsel will now prepare advice on an application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on the basis that the wrong case was rejected by the High Court and the wrong appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeal.

In simple terms, the right to have the actual case heard has been obstructed. In addition a decision that the party had deployed excessive legal resources to intimidate claimants has not been reflected fully in the costs due to be paid. Counsel will apply to lower the cost liability in full.

ECHR will be told that the High Court wrongly considered a claim against party officers personally based on their contracts of employment. It is actually a claim against officers as representatives and agents of the membership other than those making the claim.

The ECHR will be told furthermore that Court of Appeal was not only blind to the High Court's mistakes but also to the further complaints that the High Court was culpable in multiple deprivations of the right to be heard on specific points as well as in the inadmissible bringing into account of claimant motivation.

Instead the Court of Appeal addressed the fact that the same judge had found against the claimant in the past and also whether the hearing transcript indicated bias, neither of which points formed any part of the appeal.

Thank you