Mark Sheiham v Hollie Ridley

Expedition application

I accept entirely that the consequence of refusing expedition will mean that the claimant will not be able to participate in the next local government election as a Labour Party candidate which is, on the face of it a good reason for expedition. However, it has to be taken in the context of the number of factors militating against expedition and the second and third factors are of critical importance in weighing the balance in this application.

On the third factor, there will be considerable prejudice to the defendant if expedition is ordered. On the primary application that the case should be heard in the week beginning 29 September, this would provide the defendant with exactly two weeks to have prepared what the claimant accepted would be at least three witness statements from lay members of the Labour Party, having to recall events that took place on 17 May at the interview and those members are volunteers with busy day jobs and prior commitments, as well as at least one official from the party. Even on the secondary position of sometime before the end of October it is wholly unrealistic to think that the defendant could be properly prepared by then. As Mr Gillie pointed out, the defendant has not even had time to consider and draft its defence, which it is still well within time for serving under the CPR. Proceedings were issued on 29 August 2025 and the application served on 2 September 2025 during Court vacation and the holiday period of many.

There will be insuperable practical difficulties for the defendant in defending the case at such short notice. The defendant considers that the case is significant to it since the claimant is seeking to challenge 50 years or more of orthodoxy of the Labour Party’s procedures and approach to the selection of candidates with what it considers to be the important first stage of an elected group of party members to assess the suitability of those candidates who put themselves forward for having the privilege of being the candidate of the Labour Party. If successful on the Convention rights point, the claim may possibly also have ramifications for other political parties’ candidate selection procedures. I also accepted that defendant’s floodgates fear was genuine given the number of local elections taking place across the country in May next year and that there have been selection procedures followed in each constituency and ward where elections are taking place next year.

On the impact to the other side, the timing of the Labour Party conference clashes exactly with the late September dates first sought for an expedited hearing when the Labour Party officials and senior officers needed for witness statements and giving instructions to the lawyers will be more than fully occupied in preparation for and at the conference in Manchester. But even looking at late October, there is so much work to be done in preparation for the trial that it leaves insufficient time. The issues are complex legally and factually and have potentially far-reaching consequences. I have already referred to the human rights element relied on at paragraph 12 of the particulars of claim and the issue of the proper construction of the Rule Book, in paragraph 1 of the particulars of claim, which it is stated to have not previously been litigated. It would therefore be (a) virgin territory so the court would have to work from first principles without the benefit of another judge having decided the same or very similar issue previously, according to Mr Turner and (b) would, if the claim was successful, have far-reaching implications for the defendant and would affect the assessment procedure for some 18,000 candidates across the country who need to be selected every four years given the cycle of local authority elections. So the impact would go way beyond the facts of this particular case. The court was provided with the evidence of the attrition rate at the assessment stage for Lambeth that 17 out of the 19 candidates who put themselves forward were ruled out at the assessment stage, which even accepting is likely to be much higher than many other local authorities, illustrates the importance of the case to the defendant.

I also note the challenge to the rationality and reasons for the decision that was made by the assessment panel is highly fact-sensitive and would require the three decision makers on the assessment panel to recall precisely the questions asked, the answers given and their thought process in deciding why they considered the claimant was not suitable. There is also a bullying allegation and a bias allegation, which may need to be addressed in the defendant’s witness statements. There will no doubt be lengthy cross-examination. So the idea that the defendant could prepare for all that -- complex legal issues, rulings on Rule Book interpretation and a factually sensitive case which it would appear would or could involve looking into several years of the claimant's involvement with the Labour Party in Lambeth -- in two weeks, or even six weeks – is wholly unrealistic.

In considering the good administration of justice, this includes the interests, not only any other parties in the case, but also other parties before the court and the impact on other cases of ordering expedition in this case. I do not consider the claimant's time estimate for the trial of one-and-a-half days, to include an ex-temporejudgment, to be realistic. Even if what we referred to as ground 3: the factual analysis of the reasons why this claimant was deemed not suitable to go forward for endorsement, was somehow hived off from the expedited hearing, one-and-a-half days it would still be extremely tight. But in any event, it would not be in the interests of justice and in accordance with the overriding objective for matters to be dealt with piecemeal, not at the same hearing, even if it was technically possible. It was hard to see how severing part of the trial could be done when the findings of fact about the non-selection of the claimant were required to determine the other points. In any event the timetable put forward was unrealistic.

This is an important case for the Labour Party that it intends to defend and wishes to take seriously, even if it has a dim view of the merits, since it would have ramifications across each and every local authority within the country and the Labour Party organisation as to how they approach the selection of candidates in local authority elections. The claimant has chosen not to proceed by way of a Part 8 application, which suggests that this is not merely a matter of Rule Book construction, but will require findings of fact.

After reading the application I checked with the senior listing officer how easy it would be to list the case for the week of 29 September, (which is in vacation time), or the following week. I was told that it would be extremely difficult to list a one-and-a-half day hearing, and not possible without other cases being bumped out of the list that had waited patiently and/or been assessed as already being urgent. It would also be extremely difficult to find a date in any week in October given the work already listed and judicial availability. Where a case is truly urgent then of course lists can be adjusted, cases stood out if necessary and the urgent cases considered. But expedition will only be justified on the basis of real, objectively viewed urgency (Petter v EMC Europe Limited [2015] EWCA Civ 480 at [17].

In terms of the fourth category, any other factors, both parties relied on the same point to reach opposite conclusions. For the claimant, Mr Turner said the courts ought to be more willing to interfere when political rights were at stake, thus a factor militating towards granting expedition, whereas Mr Gillie sought to remind the court of the cases that established that courts should be very reluctant to interfere with the internal operations of a political party, and that was a reason why the court should be even more mindful not to grant expedition, as so many cases, from Nattrass v UK Independence Party [2013] EWHC 3017 (Ch) and the other cases such as Foster v McNicol [2016] EWHC 1966 (QB) and Evangelou v McNicol [2016] EWHC 2058 (QB) made clear. Mr Gillie had more authority on his side, but even if I had accepted Mr Turner’s submission, it would not have tipped the balance in his favour on the facts in this application.

I accept Mr Turner's point that the litigation thus far has been very rushed out of necessity – time is very tight. The appeal decision against his non-endorsement by the assessment team when the claimant knew that he would not be able to go forward with his application was made on 5 June 2025 and his letter of claim submitted on 18 July 2025. The claimant has not been dilatory.

The only other significant factor to take into account is the lack of certainty as to whether the claimant would have passed all the subsequent stages of the selection process in his bid to be a Labour Party ward candidate in the council election. Having self-nominated for selection and had his membership credentials checked, he failed the first assessment. The selection process was very much at the early stages. He may thus have been a remote chance of being selected to stand by the Labour Party – the odds were not good from the outset as there were 19 candidates for two seats in the ward. It therefore follows that the claimant may not be put in any better position by a speedy trial, which is a strong indication that expedition is unwarranted (see Patricot v Adrian Lee & Partners [2023] EWHC 2493 (Ch) at [22]).

I therefore conclude that it is not justified to expedite the trial as sought in this case, but reassuring to know that the claimant is still young and there is no age limit for being a counsellor and he will have opportunities in future elections and there will be plenty of time before the next local government election for this trial to be concluded.

Since I have refused the expedition application, no case management directions for a speedy trial are required and the case can follow its normal course in accordance with the CPR.

Once again, I am grateful to both representatives for their helpful submissions on the summary assessment of costs. This was a significant application that the defendant had to take seriously even though the likelihood of success of the expedition application was slim indeed. If the claimant's application had been successful, the consequences would have been profound for the Labour Party both logistically and in terms of potential outcome. So I accept that the defendant had to prepare thoroughly and take the application seriously. It also had to work at great speed, and their solicitors will have had to play catch up.

However Mr Turner made some good points about the double counting in the reviewing of the witness statements and other aspects of the case. I also accept that collating the authorities for counsel's part and some other matters appears to have taken rather longer than one would have expected and strays beyond the reasonable. But, in general terms, it was appropriate to have experienced counsel with the level of call of Mr Gillie, who I note has had direct experience in similar cases and has appeared in some of the authorities placed before me.

I do not accept the argument that the fees should be reduced because the work will be required to be done at a later stage in any event. The time for that to be taken into account is at the next stage because we do not know what is going to happen after today and what the future of the claim will be, in light of the outcome of this application. I flag it up, so that up so that if the defendant is ultimately successful, and if there is to be a costs assessment later on, it is a point that can well be made by the claimant that the defendant must not double count some of the work they have been able to do for this hearing that might not now be required to be done later. But I also accept that the witness statement from Ms Sleeman went no further than was necessary for the purposes of this hearing and the costs for that may be recovered in full.

Taking all matters in the round, in accordance with the principles in CPR Pt 44, I reduce the amount of the total claimed and order a total of £14,000 to be paid by the claimant to the defendant, which is inclusive of VAT.

In fairing the transcript of this judgment I have had regard and applied Veriton Advisors (UK Partners) LLP v Jump Trading International Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 701, Bath v Escott [2017] EWHC 1101 (Ch) and Shirt v Shirt [2012] EWCA Civ 1029.