Exclusive: result in Corbyn ‘pre-action disclosure’ is not what ‘mainstream’ media are claiming

MSM claiming ‘major’ defeat for Corbyn but it’s only a minor part of round one of legal proceedings – and Labour has put itself on a hook

The so-called ‘mainstream’ media have been doing their usual dire job today, in this instance reporting on Jeremy Corbyn’s legal case against the Labour party in terms clearly favouring Keir Starmer, but bearing little resemblance to reality. Novara’s Aaron Bastani identified one such instance in a response on social media:

In reality, the events at today’s court hearing were unsurprising given that the party has denied the existence of the documents Corbyn’s team were trying to persuade the court to order disclosed. Starmer’s office has denied that any notes were made – contrary to decades of usual ‘LOTO’ practice – of his team’s discussions with Corbyn’s advisers and are trying to claim no deal was made for Corbyn’s reinstatement to the Labour whip.

But the rest of what the judge said has been conveniently ignored by the Establishment media.

The court gave its decision today at 3.30 and did not allow the application for pre-action disclosure of LP documents made by Corbyn’s lawyers.

However, the judge also linked the decision to her finding that Corbyn already had enough to press on with in the substantive case at this point – and said his team can submit amendments later in the case regarding the agreement that was negotiated with Starmer’s office. And there was considerable bad news for Starmer’s case in the rest of the judgment, which:

  1. acknowledges in a judicial finding – in paragraph 9 – that the ‘Governance and Legal Unit’ (GLU) report presented to the National Executive Committee ‘Disputes Panel’ did not find that JC had engaged in prejudicial conduct
  2. finds in paragraph 10 that the Disputes Panel made no finding that Corbyn’s conduct was grossly detrimental
  3. finds that there is a clear arguable case of procedural unfairness that has been identified

The finding is also unhelpful to the party’s case, in that in the substantive proceedings to follow they will have to stand by their representations to the court that there exist no documents relevant to the agreement to reinstate. Any discovery of such documents will be hugely incriminating – and equally the party will not be able to point to any documents it thinks will help its case, because supposedly none exist.

The failure of the ‘MSM’ to mention any of these obviously-significant aspects of today’s judgment is as damning as it is unsurprising.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. The MSM was never fair to Jeremy. Why would it change now? The MSM along with Southside the Tories the PLP and establishment figures such as Chief Rabbi Mirvis and Intelligence Chief Scarlet ( of Iraq dodgy dossier fame) worked to keep him out of Downing St by falsely accusing him of being an antisemite, a terrorist supporter, a spy, a Marxist, a Stalinist, a Trotskyite, a pacifist, a security threat etc and we his supporters were called dogs scum antisemites bullies thugs homophobes vandals etc so why would anyone expect truthful reporting of this case.
    Solidarity Jeremy I hope you will prevail and I also hope the disgusting way you were treated “all comes out in the wash” as my old nan used to say

      1. Thank you SteveH. I don’t agree with you very often but you always back up your position with reasonable comment and open discussion, unlike some people that comment. So I respect you and your opinion!

      2. So you respect SHILLS do you Richard, because THAT is what SteveH is!. A paid shill of the Establishment. And the vast majority of people who read and post on skwawkbox know it! And you obviously missed the post just two or three days ago in which Mr H told another poster to ‘go fuck yourself’ (gfy), and the literally HUNDREDS of times he has used the term ‘for fuck’s sake’ (ffs) when responding to someone.

        Hmm, sounds to me like yur trying to do a PR job on Mr H!!

      3. Allan – I do wish you would grow up. You keep telling us that repetition is a form of propaganda, so what does that make you.

      4. Is that really the best you could come up with!

        Beyond pathetic!

    1. Reply to Steve H
      It appears there was a meeting but no notes or minutes were taken by the party. That is not to say that there were no notes taken by any of the attendees such as Len, a Trade Unionist to whom note taking is a second nature. I would be surprised if he hadn’t taken notes which will be made available to Jeremy’s legal team.
      In the absence of agreed minutes or formal notes the informal notes taken by any of the attendees will be the only documentary evidence before the court for consideration and will therefore have weight. I think maybe the party outsmarted itself on this one – hope so anyway.

      1. Smartboy – It’s surprising that we haven’t heard a squeak from either Len or Jon.

      2. SteveH
        Whilst i agree with Richard, it never lasts, if we gave you a new face it would not take long for you to spoil it
        You are living in LA LA LAND if you think no one on JC’s side took notes or kept a record of the various draft agreements
        What we know is centrists are lying scumbags, from Iraq down
        We are getting closer with this case and class action to bankrupting the party and their officers, then we simply walk in and start to clean up the mess
        Starting with the bastard offspring of Thatcher

      3. Reply to Steve H. 1. 06pm
        As witnesses in the proceedings they are prevented from commenting on their evidence before the hearing – this would be deemed prejudicial to the the outcome. I am astonished that you did not know this.

      4. Smartboy – Civil proceedings become active, in England, when the hearing date for the trial is arranged “I am astonished that you did not know this.”

  2. In a statement Jeremy posted on his FB page at 2.00am in the morning on November 17th he said that the CONCERN (about A/S in the party) has not been overstated or exaggerated, and then that evening he was reinstated. Now WHY would he say such a thing unless he had been contacted by someone in Starmer’s team (on Starmer’s behalf) and told that if he could clarify in a statement that when he said the problem of A/S in the party ‘has been dramatically overstated’ etc, he WASN’T implying that the concern about it had been exaggerated, then he could be re-admitted to the party.

    I mean Jeremy didn’t just suddenly think to himself in the early hours of the morning: “Oh, I wonder if when I said three weeks ago that the problem of A/S in the party has been dramatically overstated (by political opponents and the media) that some people may have thought I was implying that the CONCERN about it has been overstated and exaggerated, so I think I’ll just post a statement on my FB page to clarify that I wasn’t implying THAT at all”.

    Of course he didn’t! THAT was the deal, and the reason why Starmer and Co are denying there WAS any deal.

    1. Yes, of course the ‘concern’ dissembled by the likes of Hodge and John Mann and the other ‘moderates’ – along with the JLM and CAA and LAA and the BoD and the MSM and the Jewish newspapers – WAS ‘dramatically overstated’, but the concern THEY ‘generated’ in many Jewish people WAS real.

    2. The problem was clearly overstated to the EHRC
      BoD CAA JLM should be prosecuted for vexatious claims of anti semitism

  3. i certainly wish Jeremy well. He fought a huge fight and suffered terribly from it;if he could only but move on and accept that there’s no way through for his ideas and for his love of social justice on a road which sets his vindication around a Judiciary which has never treated the Labour Movement with equality and within that same party which destroyed him,as leader of the largest party in Europe. The right step is to leave and start something new,save legal costs and ask those who have contributed permission to redirect to help build alternative political infrastructures. A new peace movement is not enough esp as it will be biased around blowback terror and may well serve as sufficient for 1000s of supporters when the only serious road to change is political power. People who claim that extra- political activities have influence overlook that 1,000,000 demonstrators were ignored by Blair and his pursuit of war in Iraq.

    1. Bill, you begin by saying that Jeremy ‘fought a huge fight’, and I’m not quite sure what you’re referring to. Could you elaborate? You then go on to say that ‘there’s no way through for his ideas and for his love of social justice’, but then later in your post you say that ‘The right step is to leave [the LP] and start something new’, and that ‘the only serious road to change is political power’.

      Forgive me for saying so, but if there’s no way through for his ideas etc, then surely the same would apply if he started ‘something new’, as you put it, and he would just be smeared and vilified and demonised all over again by the MSM and the Jewish newspapers and CAA and the BoD and the other main political parties,or WOULD be in the event that any such new party began to make headway, but, primarily they would just ignore and blank him and any such new party.

      1. White Flag Man, surprisingly I agree with most of what you say but with a proviso on your comment:

        “they would just ignore and blank him and any such new party.”

        Only if he didn’t fight back!

      2. If the MSM et al just ignored and blanked Jeremy and any such new party, then there would be NOTHING for Jeremy to fight back against would there Jack!

        And if you agree with much of what I said (in response to Bill), then I take it you agree that – as Bill put it – there is no way through for Jeremy.

        Needless to say, the only reason you posted your ‘Reply’ to me was so that you could repeat your White Flag Man falsehood AND your platitude about Jeremy not fighting back. So what happened when he DID ‘fight back’ and defended his record on dealing with A/S in the party (the day the EHRC published its so-called report)?! Yep, he got suspended, and then had the whip withdrawn shortly after being readmitted three weeks later. And how many times have you repeated the falsehood that Jeremy has thrown people like Chris Williamson under the bus, when you know damn well that Jeremy has no say whatsoever in the disciplinary process! Dozens of times, along with your chums!

      3. That should have read ‘had’ no say in the disciplinary process ‘when he was leader’.

      4. White Flag Man, you’ve obviously not noticed all the allacks that have already been made upon Corbyn which require a strong and assertive response from him. With today’s media it’s even more correct that a lie can go around the world before,,,,,,,,,,

    2. Anyone proposing members should leave is clearly working for Temporary Embarrassment

  4. The Courts decision yesterday was just a procedural hearing the out come of which as Skwawky rightly says was always going to be of benefit to Corbyn. Either any relevant documents would have to be disclosed to Corbyn pre-trial or having denied their existence the LP would certainly be unable make use of any material like it to support it’s defence of the action. I think that’s what is called a win / win situation and probably why Corbyn’s lawyers made the application for disclosure. It’s well known that such orders are not usually made by the Courts – a fact that the judged referred to in her judgement. and it would have not been unknown to Corbyn’s lawyers

    The LP has however just as good as told those who wish Corbyn to be expelled at all costs that the ruling has put Corbyn in a very weak position and that it is indicates that the LP’s will be able to defend the case successfully. It’s statement yesterday was obviously designed to convince Corbyn of the foolishness of the whole endeavour. However the actual case is yet to be heard and the Judge herself even said in yesterday’s judgement that Corbyn’s arguments and evidence were not inconsequential which made the requested disclosure unnecessary

    If the judgement does go Corbyn’s way and he has to be re-instated and perhaps even wins damages Starmer is going to have a lot of very disappointed people on his hands and a lot of explaining to do. People who have had their expectations raised are going to want to know why Corbyn is still in the LP and how Starmer (a lawyer) lost a case that he said was as good a won owing to the judgement made yesterday. I fear that they might be quite cross with him.

    1. And if Corbyn gets the whip back, can we all look forward to Margaret Hodge making good on her threat to leave the party?! 😂

      1. Leaving just the party?

        Best get those bags packed and left by the door, madge…

    1. Harry law Corbyn caved and contradicted himself when he bowed to the AS scam and smear campaign against the Socialist revival in the Labour party..Either way hes forced to go forward using mainly membership money just like the knight.Both of them will use hard earned money to feather the nest of Lawyers.Shame its come to this,but thats the establishment Labour party in all its glory.

      1. He didn’t cave, and he didn’t contradict himself, and Okeefe is lying through his teeth, as he so often DOES! He is of course alluding to the statement Jeremy posted on his FB page three weeks after he was suspended in which he said that ‘concern’ over A/S in the party has NOT been exaggerated, which is entirely different from what he said three weeks earlier on the day the EHRC published it’s fraudulent report, when he said the ;scale’ of the problem ‘has been dramatically overstated’ (by political opponents and the media).

        Yes, the ‘concern’ about A/S in the party WAS ‘dramatically overstated’ by the likes of Hodge and Mann and the other Blairites and the MSM and the Jewish newspapers and the CAA and JLM and LAA and BoD et al, but the ‘concern’ that THEY ‘generated’ amongst many Jews WAS real.

        And I have no doubt Jeremy was told by Starmer’s team that if he could just clarify that he wasn’t implying in his initial statement that ‘concern’ about A/S in the party had been exaggerated, then the problem of his suspension could be resolved, and THAT is why he posted such a statement on his FB page at 2.00am in the morning on November 17th. And the shills were ready and waiting to falsely smear him (on left-wing blogs) later that day as having contradicted what he initially said AND done a volte face, implying of course that he wasn’t the man of integrity and high principles that people on the left believed him to be!

        He IS, and Okeefe and Co are lying through their nasty little teeth!

      2. Hit the wrong key, and that should have read ‘scale’ (of the problem) of course, and I should also add that it wasn’t only on left-wing blogs that the shills were trying to smear Jeremy as having contradicted himself, but also on social media platforms. And no doubt in the Comments sections of the Daily Mail and the Sun etc!

        And the ‘bowing’ that Okeefe asserts is just MORE bullshit lies! Funny, isn’t it, that Jeremy supposedly did all this ‘bowing’, and yet more-or-less immediately Jeremy announced he would be standing down as leader (after the 2019 GE defeat), Okeefe was repeatedly insisting on here that Jeremy must stay on as leader! Doesn’t add up of course, and it is Okeefe who is ‘contradicting’ himself!

      3. White flag man….dont tell me what I am reffering to when I say “Corbyn caved” .Let me make this clear and concise.Jeremy Cornyn is a decent human being unlike many in the PLP.He inspired a movment that was unsurpassed in recruitment of the Labour party and any other parties..Jeremy Corbyn unfortunately was no leader and that was a chance missed when we desperately needed a effective and efficient leader to build on the membership and the Socialist revival.Now Howard get to bed and stop accusing every tom dick or anybody else of being liars ..paid shills,unpaid shills black ops right wing destroyers and undercover operations from the jungles of Cambodia…Go and build your grotto to jeremy and keep it to yourself….and step up the medication its still free for now no matter how hard you try to stop the advancement of socialism and the Socialist revival.

  5. There certainly was political interference from the Leader of the opposition, as soon as Corbyn was suspended, contrary to all ideas of natural justice, Starmer toured the TV studios badmouthing Corbyn and telling everyone Corbyn was an Anti Semitic denialist who was deliberately minimizing the number of LP members accused of Anti Semitism in the party [Angela Rayner agreed with Corbyn on this]. Corbyn’s perfect right to give his views on these issues was confirmed by the Commission itself. Just one further note, if Corbyn was cleared of bringing the party into disrepute which was clear from his elation after the panel decision, why was he warned? this seems to be a recurring theme from most members accused and then cleared of Anti Semitism. Could be time for another inappropriate fire at LP HQ set by Starmer similar to the Independent Group for Change’s financial records were destroyed including its list of doners.
    Auditor says ‘inappropriate’ destruction of documents limited scope of its review of disbanded party’s finances

      1. different Frank..There should be bans on holding directorships for that behaviour.1.5million buried no matter what the acoutants say.and how do they get away with having a bonfire of accounts on a company of less than a year old who have effectively hidden documents.and walked away.

  6. Corbyn needs to go with both feet down the middle on this, his reputation and honour is at stake. He should not get cold feet since Starmer, the BoD and all the other opposition snakes are out to destroy him and everyone and everything he stands for.

    1. Harry Law, correct. Corbyn must not forget that apart from his own future in the Party being on the line, there are hundreds of thousands of members and others who once put their trust in him to represent them who he has already badly let down. He must not do it again by getting cold feet. This is a final chance for him to deal a blow against enemies such as Starmer, Hodge, Rayner etc.

      Which brings us to the quality or otherwise of his political advisers. If he hasn’t learnt now and I’m not sure he has, that people such as John McDonnell, Len McCluskey and others behind the scenes cannot be relied upon to give good strategic advice, it’s game over. However if I was Corbyn, I would feel pretty uncomfortable going back into a Party to rub shoulders with those who have exposed themselves to be enemies whom I once thought of as friends and comrades. Does he ever consider that what they did to him is exactly what he did to Chris Williamson and others? ‘Solidarity’ is just a word to some!

  7. The disgusting lies and naked hatred is shown to Jerremy Corbin is beyond puke-inducing.

    So let’s spell it out for scumbag so-called journalists HE HAS NOT LOST AT TRIAL!!! It was a pre-trial hearing that’s it he is still taking the Cult of New Labour 2.0 to the court about how they have cravenly treated him.

    Personally, I want him to really make the scum panic and say fine you don’t want me in Labour fine. I will set up a real socialist party. Watch they scream then because they are terrified of him.

    This is the real reason for all this fear!

  8. Looks like shit hitting fan
    Germany urges EU to rule against Astra Zeneca for over 65’s

  9. In another case the ‘Good Law Project are being screwed by the government
    Their call for Judicial Review looking into non disclosure of Covid19 contracts is being defended on the basis that disclosure is not in the public interest
    The Government are spending £1 million on legal fees which would be impossible for the GLP to meet if they lost
    This is threatening the case going forward
    Only chance now is for court to limit liability on both sides or someone with deep pockets comes forward to support them

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: