by Labour could face a multi-million pound legal bill as a result of a bitter internal feud dating back to the Jeremy Corbyn era.
Labour has accused Mr Corbyn’s former chief of staff Karie Murphy, his former communications director Seumas Milne and three other ex-staff of leaking a controversial document just after Sir Keir Starmer became leader in April 2020.
Documents submitted to the High Court this week reveal the party’s legal pursuit has cost almost £1.4m so far.
And the party’s lawyers were estimating that a further £868,000 could be spent on the case, which had yet to come to full trial.
The full hearing was expected to be scheduled for either early summer or early autumn next year.
But Labour has asked the court to delay this until at least February 2025 – in other words, until after the last possible date for a general election.
Legal documents show the party is arguing that its small legal team would find it challenging to prepare for a court case while fulfilling its other responsibilities in an election period.
Its lawyers say it would be unfair and inappropriate for the case to go ahead at this time.
But statements from two of the five people Labour is taking action against, submitted to the court via their lawyers, argue that a delay to 2025 would be detrimental.
Ex-staffer Georgie Robertson said she felt like her life had been put on hold, and that she believed she would struggle to find work until her name was cleared.
A second former staffer, Harry Hayball, complained the proceedings were causing him extreme stress.
The issue of timing is likely to be settled on 5 December, when the parties to the dispute will attend a costs and case management conference at the High Court. This will be the fifth such meeting in the dispute so far.
If Labour was to lose the case, it could face an even higher bill.
Carter Ruck, representing the former staffers, says they would then push for the party to meet their costs.
Anti-Semitism row
According to the documents before the High Court, the former staff face an estimated £1.1m in future costs, though Labour believes that estimate is too high.
The five staffers have been blamed by Labour for the leak of a controversial internal party document, which included private emails and messages.
The messages contained a number of allegations – including that anti-Corbyn head office staff had undermined the 2017 election campaign, and that efforts to tackle antisemitism had been hindered by some of those staff opposed to the then leadership.
But the document also contained unredacted emails and WhatsApp messages from party staff critical of the Corbyn leadership, breaching data protection.
Nine people who regarded themselves as whistleblowers on antisemitism took Labour to court for putting their details in the public domain.
Labour then counter-sued the five ex-staffers it accused of leaking the details – arguing that they and not the party as a whole should be held liable.
The nine whistleblowers dropped their legal action in August. But the party is still pursuing the five whom they blame for the leak.
The court documents make clear that Labour is trying to reclaim legal costs from the five. It is also seeking damages from them to cover the party’s costs in investigating the leak.
Leak source disputed
Although involved in the drafting of the document, all five have always denied leaking its contents.
They say they are confident of winning their case because a party probe – using an external investigator – failed to find the source of the leak.
The wider-raging inquiry by Martin Forde KC could not name any culprit, or culprits.
The ex-staffers have argued that 15 other people had access to the document – and that the party has not pursued anyone who was not directly employed in the then leader’s office or Labour’s headquarters.
Three of the five – Ms Robertson, Mr Hayball and Laura Murray – were also investigated by the criminal investigations unit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
The ICO closed its case earlier this year due to insufficient evidence.
Labour says a civil case would be decided on the lower “balance of probabilities” test, not on the ICO’s higher bar of “beyond reasonable doubt”.
However, a document which Labour wanted to include in its case can not be used in the court proceedings, the BBC understands.
Ms Murphy sent an email to her solicitor from a Labour Party laptop just before the leaking of the report in April 2020.
Lawyers acting for Labour previously asked the High Court to grant permission to use the document, which it said contained “prima facie evidence of wrongdoing”. But the court decided the contents were legally privileged and therefore could not be used.
In August, the party was reported to have had to stump up £90,000 as an interim contribution towards Ms Murphy’s costs.
While the party has been successful in attracting new sources of financial support – and has welcomed back some donors who had suspended contributions during the Corbyn era – some members of the party’s ruling national executive are privately concerned about a spiralling legal bill.
A Labour spokesperson said: “The party has conducted a wide-ranging and appropriately thorough investigation following the leak, and is confident of the case it has presented to the court.”
