‘Is you on crack or somethin’?’ Judge Foskett could topple Corbyn on Thursday after hearing

By on

Ali G’s one-time agent brings case which could see Labour leader required to get nominations to stand in election


The case of Foster v McNicol and another was heard yesterday in the High Court in front of Mr Justice Foskett. It could potentially decide the fate of the Labour party: if Judge Foskett decides that the National Executive Committee (NEC) was wrong to rule that Jeremy Corbyn, as incumbent leader, did not require nominations to stand, then the contest could become a coronation for Owen Smith. An outcome likely to infuriate the membership in the country as much as Corbyn infuriates the members in the House.

Given the scale of the divide in the Labour party, it is perhaps apt that Judge Foskett is the author of the leading book about compromise in English law.

The case was brought by Michael Foster, once the most feared theatrical agent in London and, most recently, failed Labour candidate for the Cornish constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle.

A short man, renowned for being one of the most volatile men in Soho even during its angriest decades, he, on one occasion, even managed to break a finger while dialing a phone too vigorously.

His client Chris Evans has described him as:

A very small Jewish man as equally proud of his heritage as he is unphased [sic] by his lack of height.

Another former client Tom Hollander, who was delighted to discover that the super-agent was shorter than him, said about him:

He’s a character who says and does things that I would never dare to do in my own life. Most people wouldn’t but Michael would. Which makes him an exceptional person.

Now he is taking the leader of his party through the law courts in a case which could lead to him being usurped.

The lawyer line-up is as follows: Gavin Millar QC (Matrix) for Foster; Mark Henderson (Doughty Street) for the NEC; Martin Westgate QC (Doughty Street) for Corbyn.

Miller argued that once a contest had been triggered it could not be the case that the nominations requirement applied only to the challenger. He stated he was not seeking to exclude Corbyn from the process, merely that he should be required to have sufficient nominees to be part of it.

Henderson explained that the courts should only become involved in the rules of unincorporated associations if the rules were incoherent, and these rules were not incoherent. Further, to prevent the members voting for their leader would be “a bold step, requiring a clear term.”

Westgate argued that Corbyn had to be treated differently from the challenger otherwise he, too, would be a challenger. Further, he reminded the judge that he had no reason to disturb the decision unless it was unreasonable and reasonable people can, of course, disagree.

Foskett J will hand down his judgment on Thursday.



This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.



Forget the future of multi-party democracy. What I want to know is who is to blame for confusing “phased” with its homonym, “fazed”?


Not Amused

I hope he does so.

Then it will be apparent to all that public law has ‘jumped the shark’ and needs to be seriously curtailed.

Modern judges are already so far away from how judges were only 30 years ago as to be quasi politicians. Time to get democracy back.



Shut your face you rampantly pompous, Jurassic speck of majoritarian revering detritus.



Spot on. Same with the upcoming Brexit hearing. There is a creeping arrogance that lawyers and barristers are now above parliamentary democracy and perhaps even decisive referendums. This has to stop.



The rule of law is above both. That’s the entire point



Sounds good in practice, but don’t be silly. If you want to argue that point, we would never have a decisive election result again as every result would be picked over, every claim to garner votes contested for legality. There in lies a train wreck for our democracy, ironic.



Rule of Law is a mere slogan – only workable when the image of the state is perceived entirely as a system of norms or a moral association as opposed to a policy pursuing entity. Read your Oakeshott.



Normally I don’t reply to your daft nonsense, Not Amused, and just roll my eyes, but we all have our personal breaking points.

As any lawyer with a functioning brain cell could tell you, this isn’t being adjudicated under public law and isn’t being heard in the Administrative Court – it falls nowhere near that Court’s jurisdiction.

This is the law of unincorporated associations – something that encompasses everything from your local rugby club to the Labour Party. It’ll be done on ordinary interpretative principles. Public law doesn’t get a look in.



Another cancerous post. Well done.



This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.



[add insult here]



Agree with Westgate



It’s not a public law challenge but a contractual one.



Corbyn isn’t a challenger, even the most useless lawyer could surely defend that rather obvious point.



Corbyn. Sympathiser.



Corbyn should be prevented from standing on the basis that he is damaging uk democracy.

If I were the judge I would approach the question with that level of bias, just to screw the bearded old trot.

Corbyn can get back to wearing his sandals and cry over his quinoa in his Islington bubble.



Gavin Millar has a sister called Fiona who is the partner of Alastair Campbell. Isn’t it a small world?


Comments are closed.