Breaking: Left-wing members win double court victory vs Labour

Win includes cost award after party attempt to have case dismissed early falls flat

Win includes cost award after party attempt to have case delayed falls flat

A left group of suspended and expelled Labour members has won a significant legal victory today at the High Court. Labour Activists for Justice (LA4J) are claiming against the party over a breach of the principles of fairness for those under investigation established by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, after the party shockingly told them ‘EHRC does not apply to you’.

The members had applied to the court, in the interests of the most economic and speedy resolution of the case, for eight similar cases brought to be dealt with as one – and Labour was both opposing this application and trying to persuade the court to order a hearing on preliminary issues that would have substantially delayed matters and increased costs.

But this afternoon, a judge ruled against the party on both points.

When the court date was set after a crowdfunding drive, LA4J issued the following statement:

Labour Activists for Justice’ case is now scheduled for its first court hearing on Wednesday February 24th to determine how the case should proceed.  LA4J is seeking a quick and efficient resolution with the joining of two groups of claimants with the same interest to avoid wasted time and costs.  The Labour Party is seeking a further preliminary hearing to determine legal questions LA4J do not even consider relevant, thereby increasing costs and delay.

We hope that this hearing will prevent an unnecessary (and expensive) second pre-hearing.  It should be in both parties’ interests to move to a full court hearing as soon as feasible, to limit costs and resolve these issues as soon as possible. We want this full court hearing in the expectation that if we win, this will bring benefit to the many other people stuck in Labour HQ’s unjust disciplinary processes.

Meanwhile, over the last few days the Labour Party have totally exonerated 3 of those who were looking to join us in the action, despite them having been under investigation for over 15 months, without even knowing why they were being investigated. Additionally they have concluded the cases for two LA4J activists and changed the allegations for another.

It is unfortunate that the Labour party by its actions has incurred legal costs of over £50,000 in just two weeks – at the expense of members’ subscriptions – rather than getting down to the meat of the case.  We do not have the large pockets that the Labour party is using to defend a system criticised as being unjust and ineffective by the EHRC.

The judge’s ruling means that the case will go to a full legal process, barring any out of court settlement agreed among the parties. The victory is a significant boost for those fighting Labour’s assault on member rights and freedom of speech since Keir Starmer took over the leadership.

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 without hardship, 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. Well done to Chris Williamson for using the costs he was awarded against the Labout Party to back this case. The way things are going he could end up with having more in the kitty than the Labour Party.

      1. Utterly despicable that Labour – the party built to defend the weak against the wealthy – would use our subscriptions to buy costly delays, bankrupt members and subvert justice – exactly as the rich use their wealth to corrupt the process.
        They’re beneath contempt.
        I hope I live long enough to throw shit at them as their tumbrils pass by. My opposition to capital punishment is undiminished and I’ll renew my objection the second I see the last of their heads rolling down the gutter.
        Socialism is the greater good and outweighs all other considerations.

      2. David – ….. but you seem to have forgotten all about democracy in your rush to impose your own political ideology on others.

      3. David – ….. but you seem to have forgotten all about democracy in your rush to impose your own political ideology on others.

        FFS, it’s a comments section — no one’s ‘imposing’ anything on anyone, unlike your hero Starmer and his side-kick Evans with their diktats about what members can or cannot discuss on pain of suspension.

        You constantly talk about democracy but seem to see nothing wrong with people being told what they can or cannot discuss in a political setting — that’s more akin to fascism than democracy. Get your head out of your arse, for once.

      4. SteveH
        You see Temporary Embarrassment as a democrat

  1. Nothing cheers me up more than reading about members giving this cult of new Labour 2.0 a good legal kicking in the courts.

    I hope the comrades carry on and win and demonstrate once and for all to this damn cult that they are NOT above the law!

    1. Stay…and pay the legal bills for both sides, providing a host for the parasites to thrive off?

      Errrr…. Nah.

      Opt out, let the other outstanding cases run their course; and when they win theirs it’ll hopefully bankrupt the parasites who think they own the bastard party.

    2. By leaving we hurt the right financially – by contributing to crowdfunded legal actions we hurt them financially again.
      Those who remain can only do one of those things.
      If you stay you can only hit them once – if you leave you can hit them twice.

  2. Such a shame Members have to take the the party to court, to get democracy. It should never have come to that.

    Not to be a Jeremiah – very well done, to everyone involved in this.

  3. Has ANY political party EVER faced so many court actions from its own members? I can’t think of any times when this has happened in such volume.

  4. Coulda saved a few bob and not contested the case, Keith.

    But hey! You know the law, dontcha?

    Imagine being so shite a person (nevermind an alleged professional) that even ian dummkopf schmitt has immediately got the measure of you?!!

    Poor form.

    1. Begs the question why the board NEC hasnt hauled them in and asked ‘wtf are you doing, do they know they could be liable to counter claims
      Still hope we can hit them with charge for ‘Panorama Drama ‘ money
      The big one is Mark Howell Class Action with Crowd Justice on behalf of members
      Off you must all fuck

    2. So the membership money squandered on “Lawyers” to fight the knight lawyer whos acting on behalf of more lawyers like the Bliar lawyer and decided this time by Grandee “Lawyers” of the establishment high court meaning that the only solution for the working-class movement in the Labour party is to fund more “Lawyers” using more membership money till the money runs out?.. Dont you get the message?

      1. It isn’t ideal Joseph, but it is the only weapon immediately to hand. Wars of this kind are won by the slow grind on many fronts, and this is an early skirmish between our scouting party and the enemy.

      2. John – Are you hoping to add some credibility to your battle plan by dressing it up in pseudo military language.

      3. SteveH24/02/2021 AT 11:33 PM
        John – Are you hoping to add some credibility to your battle plan by dressing it up in pseudo military language.

        Do you hope to add some credibilty to your stammerism with your constantly typing bollocks? Oh, my bad, I meant ‘pseudo parliamentary bollocks’?

        Nobody here’s impressed, and I very much doubt you’ve had a phone call off rayner for your efforts…

      4. “phone call off rayner” – I’d forgotten.
        The genius who thought that one up must be hoping we’ll all forget it.
        Dickhead’s probably still kicking himself he didn’t go with the
        “KEITH’LL FIX IT” badges instead.

      5. What was the name of an interminable legal contest in Dickens? Jarndice versus Jarndice? How much is Max Headroom willing to spend, enough to bankrupt and destroy any residue of the left presumably.

  5. At least johns veiws and comments dont come from a Israeli government slush fund unlike your dispicable fellow parasites in the Labour party Steve H.(judas).And John Thatcher doesnt rely on spys from the Israeli military intelligence operative to dictate the latest “Line” to follow my leader.Your slavish conviction to the right wing formats has no place in a civilised society or the former ideology of the Labour party.And to John I say I have thrown a lot of money at the legal profession and socialise with in the past.A trip to the High court in London is a mugs game and especially if you are funding both sides of the same Labour party.The bottom feeders will suck the lifeblood of the members money and I doubt anything will change in the Labour party.even if you win…you bloody loose..theres only one winner in the law game and its the legal profession(so called)

    1. I have no love of lawyers Joseph, professional liars is the nicest thing I can say about most of them, and greedy grasping charlatans in too many instances. The problem is the law and justice only fit where they touch, and they don’t touch in many places. Still, it remains the only immediate response we have got, hopefully that will improve over time.

      1. My wonderful wife had the privilege to care for a highly decorated old socialist. She remained his carer up till end of life. Julie received a marvelous and unexpected mention in his will. By the time she received the cheque a third went to solicitors dues etc. She was grateful, of course, she’s red, but the lawyer was grasping and greedy to which she added rudeness. Since becoming a qualified brief my once beloved niece has turned into a harridan libdemon. Hang the lawyers.

  6. Iron fist inside a velvet glove
    Democracy is the least worst system, my bottom line is once you think your above the likes of us, its upto us to bring you back down to earth

    1. “least worst”? but democracy is a pre-requisite for (democratic) socialism. I know what you mean though Doug, FPTP is an abomination of democracy, the way a billionaires’ press pretends to be a “free” press and is an abomination of information.

      Democracy and Socialism are INDIVISIBLE (hence, why the ruling class have engineered and impose fptp to negate the relationship). Sorry to remind you of what I know you know. I’ll get me coat..

      1. qwertboi
        What we both know going back to Gang of Four is our party has been hamstrung by these Red Tory bastards, its how we clear them out and protect ourselves in the future
        Then hand over to the next generation
        I’m 61 pray God i see it in my life time and Newcastle winning the Cup would send me to that great Cheltenham in the sky a happy lad

  7. Off subject, but LEADING FROM THE BACK??:

    ” ‘Biggest ever’ online health campaign conference to ‘pile political heat on government’ over cronyism “.

    Thousands of people have already signed up to support Health campaigners, trade unionists and party activists publicise the tories’ cronymism (£2bn given by Hancock to ‘chums, chancers’ and Conservative party sponsors) and stealth privatisation plans for the NHS. Even the ideologically unpleasant Rachel Reeves is jumping on the bandwagon.

    Keir Starmer? Nowhere to be seen.

    A bad leader taking his party down the road to electoral insignificance. Sir Keir Plonker

  8. Talking of Labour party finance, the Information Commissioners Office are currently looking into possible breaches of the General Data Protection Requirements. The party were investigated last year and only narrowly avoided a fine. Since then the former General Secretary self reported the party after further breaches came to light, including when members of Starmers leadership campaign team misused the database to obtain members details.

    Fingers crossed the party don’t get away with it again and a nice big fine is imposed for not obeying the law and abusing members personal data.

    1. “Fingers crossed the party don’t get away with it again and a nice big fine is imposed for not obeying the law and abusing members personal data.”

      And those responsible are given criminal convictions.

      Although the judgement against Mike Sivier doesn’t inspire much confidence.

  9. Change the language
    Did any front line staff die from a shortage of PPE
    How many died because you chose to spaff billions on the spivs and thieves who bankroll the cheap and nasty Tory party

    Temporary Embarrassment is now going to vote against raising Corporation Tax and Windfall Tax
    This is about as credible as him being more pro Brexit than JC
    At what stage do centrists stop repeating past mistakes, the electorate made it clear what they think about the choice between two Tory parties

  10. Is it a conspiracy theory that centrists are in fact very good at both keeping Labour out of power when we threaten to change the status quo or being an ersatz Tory party when in power

    1. It is not a ‘Conspiracy’ theory. There is considerable evidence that verifies the proposition. Well said.

      1. Would be interesting to see how the others get paid off, where they go to, not just the ‘Middle East Peace Envoy’

    2. My concern is that the effort to keep Labour out of power seems to have come mainly from “staffers”. How are these appointed (not elected) characters allowed to make such impact. And what else have they done/are doing that we don’t know about?

      1. BoxOfSkwawk
        What people forget is the internal report is a small part of the source material, when this comes out in court then its game over
        Never again

  11. The court actions are valuable, especially when they win, and even more so when damages and costs are awarded. It all contributes to a chipping away at the cuckoos in the nest. Looks to me like the right wing are getting twitchy about Starmer. Could they be looking at shuffling him out by the Autumn? Could they be preparing to replace him with Cooper or Benn? Word has it you know. If we arrive at that position, will it be possible to field a candidate who could defeat the chosen one? We need to start preparing for that scenario.
    We also need to have a smile on occasions, so go to “Politics JOE” on Youtube and watch “Jungle Book”.

    1. Yes, as reprehensible as Starmer is, he’s just being used as a ‘unity candidate’ front for reprobates like Ed Balls’ wife and other neoliberals who have counterparts in the Conservative parrty that are lefter than them (e.g. Margaret Hodge, Rachel Reeves, and others).

      That’s not to say he isn’t one of the worst leader the party has ever had, just that the PLP contains many who are out-do him..

  12. I certainly do not agree with the character in the Shakespeare play Henry V1 who said “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”, when it comes to Starmer I would insist on torturing him first, the gobshite.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: