A copy may be found here: CA-2020-000690-C  Re-amended SEALED (1).pdf

Article:-

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AqJNjCoryO_dgdIQmCuM4SafGWjhoQ

Letter to the Lord Chancellor and enclosures:-

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AqJNjCoryO_dgdIPNIhtnrF35Uwm8A

Podcast:-

https://soundcloud.com/mark-38-1/podcast-on-2017-general-election

On 19 June last year, at a virtual hearing which I was granted in the High Court, the Labour Party revealed it:-

“suspended some of its members after a confidential report into anti-Semitism during Jeremy Corbyn’s tenure as leader was leaked” - Evening Standard

With indecent haste another judge the following month struck out the case, in a flawed process.  The Court of Appeal has been engaged since and will hopefully soon get to grips with the question of restoring the case.

The party is in a financial mess because the leadership has irresponsibly used members’ money extravagantly, seemingly as a weapon of intimidation.  Of the sums the party was charged by its lawyers the judge said last year “they are enormous”.  On the one occasion when she summarily assessed them she cut them by two thirds.  I had already told the court as a matter of principle I would pay whatever may be ordered “once it is finally resolved what it is”.

The question of whether I have to pay any of them is for the Court of Appeal.  However, I prudently seek to establish a provision of £10,000.   I also seek to provide £20,000 for the considerable amount of work counsel will have to do in the fairly near future. 

My claim is actually motivated purely to remedy the injustices in contract law, fiduciary principles and equity of mobilising me and, as it happened, others in a similar position as well, on the false representation that the organisation was actually trying to win in 2017 when secretly it was not.

I claim the party officers’ rulebook obligation to act in good faith in relation to members was breached by their secretly seeking to procure multiple times that a rival party in the election held a seat contested by the party, and by their making dispositions in relation to party funds and resources, such as buildings, equipment and communication materials and messages.

My claim says the second defendant:-

“a. sought the victory of rival parties in vulnerable seats, rather than the victory of the Labour Party,

 b. in doing so, secretly employed party funds, the time of paid party staff, and the use of buildings and facilities.”

What the leadership should have done last year, and could yet do, is settle, by agreeing facts, apologising to (and in some cases even compensating) any potential claimants in a similar position to me and holding to account wrong doers.  They will have to account under the rules for their extravagant tactics.

Counsel David Lemer has written a further note which has now been supplied to the Court of Appeal at its invitation.

This was the further work at short notice referred to in the last update.

So funds are now urgently required to minimise any cost liability, maximise accountability for illegitimate, politically motivated interference in the election of 2017 and end acquiescence in it, or deflection from it.

There was a development last week.  The Court of Appeal determined that it was not wrong of the High Court to allow the Labour Party to keep the leaked report off the court record (by stalling over specifying redactions it said were needed first) while the court was considering the legal basis of my action.

So I lost that aspect, although not very surprisingly.   The main issue - the legal basis of the action - has yet to be determined, due to a last minute change of judges. 

Last week’s decision means I will have to pay at least some of the party's costs, probably more than £10,000. I am now going to apply to the High Court to get the figure moderated based on the precedent set at subsequent hearings, where they were told in advance to have one counsel not two.

Also my counsel may need to do some more work at short notice.

As a consequence of these developments I now need to progress toward the target as quickly as possible.  I emphasise there is no guarantee of success but teasing out the initial suspensions last June and thoroughly airing the potential legal claims arising from the general election campaign of 2017 will have been invaluable, even if success at trial is not achieved. 

With the agreement of Crowd Justice and Woodfords Solicitors I have transferred responsibility for the fund to Tend Legal with effect from 1 December.  This is a new firm set up as a career move by the partner of Woodfords who was dealing with the case there.

Further update soon.

Previous updates can be viewed at https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/mark-howell-for-justice-old/