This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/28/jeremy-corbyn-fights-off-court-challenge-labour-leadership-ballot
The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Jeremy Corbyn fights off court challenge over Labour leadership ballot | Jeremy Corbyn fights off court challenge over Labour leadership ballot |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| Jeremy Corbyn has seen off a legal challenge that tried to force him to collect the support of MPs to stay on the Labour leadership ballot after a high court judge ruled that as the incumbent party leader this was not necessary. | Jeremy Corbyn has seen off a legal challenge that tried to force him to collect the support of MPs to stay on the Labour leadership ballot after a high court judge ruled that as the incumbent party leader this was not necessary. |
| Delivering a brief verbal judgment, Mr Justice Foskett said it was “correct in law” for Labour’s national executive committee (NEC) to have decided earlier this month that, under the party’s rules, since there was no leadership vacancy Corbyn did not need the nomination of 51 MPs or MEPs. | Delivering a brief verbal judgment, Mr Justice Foskett said it was “correct in law” for Labour’s national executive committee (NEC) to have decided earlier this month that, under the party’s rules, since there was no leadership vacancy Corbyn did not need the nomination of 51 MPs or MEPs. |
| The case had been brought by Michael Foster, a former parliamentary candidate and party donor, whose counsel argued that Corbyn should be forced to collect the names in order to stand. | The case had been brought by Michael Foster, a former parliamentary candidate and party donor, whose counsel argued that Corbyn should be forced to collect the names in order to stand. |
| Thursday’s ruling means the contest proceeds as a straight fight between Corbyn, who is the favourite, and Owen Smith, who has the backing of much of the parliamentary party. Smith welcomed the ruling. | Thursday’s ruling means the contest proceeds as a straight fight between Corbyn, who is the favourite, and Owen Smith, who has the backing of much of the parliamentary party. Smith welcomed the ruling. |
| Corbyn, who was not in court, also welcomed the decision, denouncing the case as “a waste of time and resources when our party should have been holding the government to account”. | Corbyn, who was not in court, also welcomed the decision, denouncing the case as “a waste of time and resources when our party should have been holding the government to account”. |
| He added: “There should have been no question of the right of half a million Labour party members to choose their own leader being overturned. If anything, the aim should be to expand the number of voters in this election. I hope all candidates and supporters will reject any attempt to prolong this process, and that we can now proceed with the election in a comradely and respectful manner.” | He added: “There should have been no question of the right of half a million Labour party members to choose their own leader being overturned. If anything, the aim should be to expand the number of voters in this election. I hope all candidates and supporters will reject any attempt to prolong this process, and that we can now proceed with the election in a comradely and respectful manner.” |
| A ruling against Corbyn would have plunged the party even further into civil war and left MPs with a difficult decision about whether to nominate him to give the membership a choice, even though 172 have said they do not have confidence in the current leadership, with only 40 backing him. | A ruling against Corbyn would have plunged the party even further into civil war and left MPs with a difficult decision about whether to nominate him to give the membership a choice, even though 172 have said they do not have confidence in the current leadership, with only 40 backing him. |
| Smith said he was “pleased the court has done the right thing and ruled that Jeremy should be on the ballot”. He continued: “This now puts to bed any questions about the process, so we can get on with discussing the issues that really matter.” | Smith said he was “pleased the court has done the right thing and ruled that Jeremy should be on the ballot”. He continued: “This now puts to bed any questions about the process, so we can get on with discussing the issues that really matter.” |
| Foster said his legal team had told the court they did not plan to appeal against the ruling. “We wanted the courts to adjudicate. They have,” he said. | |
| Foskett’s summary judgement said the “natural impression” of a Labour member of the party rules was that without a leadership vacancy, an incumbent did not need the nominations. | |
| He wrote: “Accordingly, the judge accepted that the decision of the NEC was correct and that Mr Corbyn was entitled to be a candidate in the forthcoming election without the need for nominations.” | He wrote: “Accordingly, the judge accepted that the decision of the NEC was correct and that Mr Corbyn was entitled to be a candidate in the forthcoming election without the need for nominations.” |
| Iain McNicol, general secretary of the Labour party, said: “We are delighted that the court has upheld the authority and decision of the national executive committee of the Labour party. We will continue with the leadership election as agreed by the NEC.” | Iain McNicol, general secretary of the Labour party, said: “We are delighted that the court has upheld the authority and decision of the national executive committee of the Labour party. We will continue with the leadership election as agreed by the NEC.” |
| After a lengthy discussion on costs, Foskett ruled that Foster must meet those of both opposing legal teams – those of the Labour party, the original defendant, and separate lawyers for Corbyn, who asked to become a party to the case. | After a lengthy discussion on costs, Foskett ruled that Foster must meet those of both opposing legal teams – those of the Labour party, the original defendant, and separate lawyers for Corbyn, who asked to become a party to the case. |
| Foskett said that while it was unusual to see two such overlapping sides have separate lawyers, it was “entirely appropriate” for Corbyn to have been represented, especially given the rapid progress of the case. It was, the judge said, “about as unusual a case as can be imagined” for the Queen’s bench division of the high court. | |
| The case hinged on a handful of paragraphs within Labour’s rules, changed under the leadership of Ed Miliband, which state that any challenger against a sitting leader must get nominations from 20% of the party’s MPs or MEPs, currently making a minimum of 51. | |
| The difference of opinion came on whether an incumbent leader like Corbyn was required to reach the 20% nomination threshold, or be automatically on any ballot. The NEC decided the latter, which Foster challenged. | |
| But in his full ruling Foskett said examination of the relevant clauses “reveals a natural and ordinary meaning that seems to me to be entirely clear”, one which favoured Corbyn’s position. | |
| “The leader would not, in that situation (where there is no vacancy), be someone who was a ‘challenger’ for the leadership and, accordingly, would require no nominations in order to compete in the ballot to retain his/her position as leader,” he ruled. | |
| Foskett stressed he was ruling on purely a legal point, and that “such political consequences or implications as there may be are of no relevance to the legal analysis asked of the court”. |