Oldknow v Evans outcome: ex-staffer's bid to force Labour to identify leakers of internal report fails. Judge said Oldknow's application “smacks of a fishing expedition”.
Oldknow's Norwich Pharmacal order application asked Labour to identify who it "reasonably believes" was responsible for leak, rather than those definitely responsible for the leak.
Key is that Labour has view on who leaked report after conducting an internal investigation, but "no smoking gun" showing beyond doubt who leaked it. Also key is that Labour's view could change after ICO and Forde investigations reveal their findings.
In response to judgment, Labour seeks its costs in respect to Oldknow’s application.
Oldknow's QC criticises Labour for not serving evidence that would assist Oldknow in understanding what happened with the leak. If Oldknow had not been "kept in the dark" by Labour, her QC says "this application could have been more targeted".
Oldknow's QC says Labour ought to pay its costs or they ought to be reserved – but judge orders Oldknow to pay Labour's costs.
Oldknow applies for permission to appeal, Labour opposes application, judge refuses application for permission to appeal.
Full write-up: labourlist.org/2021/03/ex-sta…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
