Jeremy Corbyn wins bid to personally fight legal action aimed at stopping him getting on the Labour leadership ballot
High Court claim brought by party donor trying to overturn decision by NEC to automatically place leader into contest
JEREMY Corbyn has won his bid to personally fight a legal action aimed at overturning the Labour Party's decision to guarantee him a place on the leadership ballot.
A High Court claim brought by donor Michael Foster is currently against one named defendant - the party's general secretary Iain McNicol, who is being sued in a representative capacity.
But Mr Corbyn wanted to be added as a party to the proceedings as second defendant.
On Wednesday, Master Victoria McCloud said the balance came down in favour of the leader, who was not in court, being joined onto the case.
His lawyers argued that his personal interest in the litigation was "pressing and obvious", and distinguished him from the general body of members represented by Mr McNicol.
The case, which is expected to be heard on July 26 - with Mr Corbyn attending - follows the decision of Labour's National Executive Committee (NEC) that the leader should automatically be included in the contest.
NEC members wrestled with legal advice for six hours over whether Mr Corbyn would need to secure 51 nominations to make it on to the ballot paper after both sides insisted the party rulebook backed their case.
Eventually they did decide he should be on their by right, and after Angela Eagle pulled out last night, he is set to face off against former Shadow Cabinet minister Owen Smith.
Master McCloud heard that the legal action by Mr Foster, a former parliamentary candidate, sought to reverse this decision so he would not be eligible to stand as a candidate unless he secured the requisite number of nominations in the time limited by the rules.
She said it was quite clear that there was suspicion by some NEC members of an attempt to "stitch up"; Mr Corbyn at the NEC meeting to prevent him being able to stand for election.
RELATED STORIES:
"The extent to which the court should err towards inclusiveness in an action inevitably depends on the facts but in this case the court finds that Mr Corbyn is a member of the Labour Party who is particularly affected and particularly interested in the proper construction of the rules, and his interest in that regard is of a significantly different quality than that of other members," she added.