The Labour Party has failed to secure the disclosure of emails between Jeremy Corbyn’s political strategist and her solicitor in high-profile litigation.

The party had obtained an email from Karie Murphy and a response from her solicitor which had the words 'LEGALLY PRIVILEGED' at the top. Murphy had mistakenly thought that her personal emails were no longer synced with her work emails when she handed over her laptop to the party, the High Court heard.

The party alleged the email contained 'prima facie evidence of wrongdoing' amid an inquiry into a leaked report on antisemitism in the party. But the court has ruled it was 'obviously a request for advice from a lawyer' and so should remain privileged.

Labour is being sued by individuals named in a report entitled The work of the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit in relation to antisemitism 2014-2019, published on 9 April 2020. The nine claimants allege the inclusion in it of their personal data was a breach of GDPR, a breach of privacy, a breach of confidence and unlawfully discriminatory. 

Labour claims the report was leaked by third parties for the purpose of undermining the party’s new leadership.

Murphy served as executive director of the Leader of the Opposition’s Office under Corbyn from 2016 to 2020. She denies that she leaked or had any involvement in the leaking of the report. Her case is that the email provides no support whatsoever for the allegations made against her.

Labour sought a declaration in the High Court on Monday that an email sent by Murphy to her solicitor, Martin Howe, on 8 April 2020 was not privileged. It had obtained the email after it asked members of staff involved in the drafting of the report to provide their work laptops for forensic analysis. 

Murphy had synchronised her iCloud account with her Outlook account on her work laptop, meaning her personal emails were still visible.

Anya Proops, for Labour, argued that Howe had an ongoing professional relationship with the party. But Jacob Dean, for the third parties, argued that the solicitor had a longstanding solicitor-client relationship with Murphy, under a general retainer with her.

'He [Howe] did not consider himself to have a general retainer with the Labour Party and was not retained to advise it in relation to the EHRC investigation [on alleged antisemitism],' the court heard.

Mr Justice Chamberlain concluded the words 'LEGALLY PRIVILEGED' were 'the first words the reader would have seen' if looking at the exchange in Murphy’s inbox.

'The email itself was by its contents obviously a request for advice from a lawyer and the reply was obviously a reply to that request,' Chamberlain J continued. 

Proops had confirmed that Labour was not contending that the iniquity exception applied in this case for the purposes of the application to determine whether the email remains privileged.

The declaration was refused and the case continues.