Lawyers acting for Jeremy Corbyn have argued that a disclosure of Labour documents could help prove that Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to suspend him breached a “duty to act in good faith” and that the leader was influenced by “third party interventions” from the Board of Deputies and the MP Dame Margaret Hodge.

At a hearing  in the High Court on Monday,  the ex-Labour leader’s barrister Christopher Jacobs said that his client wished to mount a legal challenge based on the claim that Sir Keir broke an agreement to allow Mr Corbyn back into the party without the need for a further apology or further sanction.

The former leader of the opposition is considering legal action against Labour in order to secure “an injunction to restore the whip immediately”, said his lawyers at the pre-trial application hearing.

The Islington North MP was first suspended from Labour on October 29 last year when he said the scale of antisemitism in Labour had been “dramatically overstated for political reasons” in his response to the damning report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission into his handling of the issue.

A Labour disputes panel meeting reinstated Mr Corbyn to the party just 19 days later – but Sir Keir then blocked him from sitting under the party whip.  

During the virtual hearing,  the QC acting for Mr Corbyn  claimed that two separate meetings were held following the suspension decision at which a statement was agreed - and subsequently released - clarifying his initial remarks about the EHRC report.

Mr Jacobs told Judge Lisa Sullivan that one of the meetings, held on October 30, was attended by Sir Keir, his deputy Angela Rayner, chief of staff  Morgan McSweeney, Unite’s Len McCluskey and Jon Trickett MP.

“My instructions are that meeting led to the agreed wording of the clarified statement being accepted as an acceptable outcome and an agreement that no further sanction was to be imposed,” said Mr Jacobs.

“Disclosure will enable (Corbyn) to say there was procedural unfairness and a breach of duty to act in good faith”, said Mr Jacobs.  

“My client is being attacked in the media, he understands that the party acted in bad faith, but he is unable to respond to the attacks. “

But when asked by Judge Sullivan whether Mr Corbyn’s response on this matter was prompted by information about the meetings  given to him by the ex-leader’s representatives Mr McCluskey and Mr Trickett, Mr Jacobs said: “They have nothing in writing. They have oral recollections of the meeting where the agreement took place.”

He added: “What we are asking for internal party correspondence to confirm.”

The barrister revealed that Mr Corbyn believes he could fight a case to prove that he  was forced out after the Board of Deputies President Marie van der Zyl and MPs including  Dame Margaret put pressure on the party’s leadership.  

“A series of members and MPs were dissatisfied with the result of the NEC decision, and contacted the leader of the Labour Party,” he said. “This is the third party intervention which impermissibly led to a breach of contact.

“Some individuals have given interviews to say the second decision to suspend enabled those individuals to remain within the party.”

Mr Jacobs argued that Mr Corbyn could not mount his case on the basis of press reports alone.

He referenced reports  which had revealed  that both the Board President  and the veteran MP Dame Margaret were among those to contact Sir Keir after a decision had been taken on November 18 to allow the ex-leader back into the Labour Party.

The QC confirmed that he was also seeking disclosure of all correspondence between the Board, its president, and Dame Margaret with the Labour leader or his office from October 29 up until November 18 relating to Mr Corbyn.

Mr Jacobs told Judge Sullivan: “We need to know the involvement of the Labour Party leader  in accepting the NEC decision.

“We need to know the conduct of the Labour Party leader in accepting the agreement  no requirement for further sanction and the matter would be closed.

“And we need to know the extent to which the decision to impose a second suspension was influenced by third-party interventions.”

He added: “A series of members and MPs were dissatisfied with the result of the NEC decision, and contacted the leader of the Labour party.

“This is the third party intervention which impermissibly led to a breach of contact.

“Some individuals have given interviews to say the second decision to suspend enabled those individuals to remain within the party.”

Mr Jacobs also said there had been a second meeting held on Zoom attended by Sir Keir’s chief of staff Mr McSweeney, his campaigns officer Simon Fletcher and representatives of Mr Corbyn, including Mr Trickett.

Again the QC said it was agreed that no further action should be taken against Mr Corbyn. But Mr Jacobs said there were “no documents” from this meeting.

Rachel Crasnow QC, acting for the Labour, said the party had already provided “adequate disclosure” handing over a series of documents relating to the case, including evidence from the disciplinary hearing that recommended he was reinstated to the party.

She said that there were “no notes” and “no minutes” from the meetings with Mr Corbyn’s representatives  adding that “there was no agreement in any event.”

She accused Mr Corbyn’s legal team of exercising a “fishing expedition” and a “change of tack” in his battle to overturn his continued suspension as a party MP.

Ms Crasnow said the former leader’s QC had  been emphasising the bad faith argument to “maximise the chances of pre-action disclosure”.

The barrister said that Mr  Corbyn’s case was not an exceptional one that warranted further disclosure of documents before a claim has been formally lodged.  

She said Mr Corbyn’s proposed claim against Labour was “a straightforward contract claim based on two agreements: firstly, his membership of the party … and, secondly, upon a supposed agreement reached between his representatives and party representatives”.

Ms Crasnow said Mr Corbyn’s lawyers should “get on” with filing the court papers to initiate a claim. 

The QC added that disclosure was also unlikely to resolve the dispute without the need to bring legal proceedings because “this case has an important political significance to Mr Corbyn that will not be satiated by obtaining early disclosure”. 

She argued in written submissions that Mr Corbyn’s “purpose of obtaining early disclosure from the party is to advance a political, rather than a legal, position”.

After the three-and-a-half hour hearing in the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court, Judge Sullivan said she would aim to  make her ruling on Mr Corbyn’s application “in writing as soon as I can”.

Before the hearing, Sir Keir told reporters: “I’m not going to comment on the particular case.

“I don’t want to see the Labour Party tied up in court proceedings, I want to see the Labour Party out there campaigning.

“My message across the Labour Party is: ‘Let’s all pull together’.

“We have got a pandemic to deal with, we have got a duty to deliver a better Britain at the end of this, let’s pull together and do that.”