A retired solicitor who failed the early stages of the Labour Party’s candidate selection process has had his application for an expedited trial dismissed.

Mark David Sheiham, a former Simmons & Simmons partner, nominated himself for selection as a potential councillor for London’s Lambeth in the May 2026 elections. He failed the interview but claims he was ‘unlawfully’ blocked from participating in the selection process.

Sheiham lodged an application for an expedited trial as ‘the only way…the court can grant a remedy’, Ryan Turner, for Sheiham, said. Otherwise the matter would not be resolved by next May’s poll. Turner said: ‘The interest my client is seeking to pursue is an interest that ought to be protected by the court. The rights of free speech, the right to pursue a political career, to work in his chosen profession as a local councillor. It should not matter that my client is not yet a local councillor. All my client is seeking to do is vindicate his rights and the only way he can realistically vindicate his rights and the court can grant a remedy if he is right, is by ordering expedition.’

Read more

Tom Gillie, for the Labour Party, said: ‘In short, this is a claim essentially…against the established process the Labour party has used to select candidates. [It is an] attempt to remove the substantive assessment in local elections which has been in place for many decades – possibly half a century. It is an important case so far as the Labour party is concerned that attacks the basis of the rules and would entitle reams of people to bring potential claims for potential breach of contract.’

Gillie told the court there was no ‘real urgency’ to justify expedition and ‘no good reason’ why other litigants, some of whom ‘will have much greater allegations of unlawfulness which the court will be deciding on should be bumped from the list entirely to make space for this trial’.

The upcoming Labour conference meant it was ‘not fair or reasonable’ and ‘not possible’ to expect Labour to ‘divert its resources for both’ the conference and the trial.

Mrs Justice Stacey, sitting in the Royal Courts of Justice, gave an ex-tempore judgment at the end of the afternoon hearing dismissing the expedition application. She said: ‘Although I accept entirely the consequence of refusing expedition and it will mean the claimant will not be able to participate in the next government election, I do not see that this by itself [is a] sufficiently good reason for expedition.

‘The defendant has not even had time to consider its defence and is still well within time to serve its defence. This is an important case for the Labour party that needs to be taken seriously if it is defending it. It would have ramifications across each and every local authority.

‘The claimant has chosen not to proceed by way of Part 8 application which to my mind indicates an understanding that this is a fairly complex case and it is not merely a matter of rulebook consideration. If it had been, no doubt the more economical route of the Part 8 claim would have been lodged instead.

‘The application for expedition must fail…it is simply not justified to expedite the trial as sought in this case.’

Sheiman was ordered to pay £12,000 costs, excluding VAT.