LAWYERS acting for Burnley-born MP Shahid Malik say they will fight on in a bitter dispute with a Yorkshire newspaper.
Jurors were deadlocked earlier this month in the International Development Secretary's libel dispute with the Dewsbury Press and former Kirklees Tory councillor Jonathan Scott.
Mr Malik, MP for Dewsbury, claimed that a letter written by Coun Scott, and printed in the Dewsbury paper last May, was defamatory of him.
And an article, which was printed in the same independent weekly newspaper the following week also contained defamatory comments, he alleged.
He argued that the inference in the two pieces was that he had played 'race-card politics', directing gangs to encourage Muslim voters to vote for Muslim Labour candidates.
Mr Scott, the newspaper publisher, Newspost Ltd, and the paper's former editor, Danny Lockwood, were represented by a top libel lawyer at the first trial, but could be unrepresented when the new hearing gets underway, probably early in the new year.
They all deny having defamed Mr Malik.
Lawyers representing Mr Malik, the first Muslim to assume a ministerial post, asked a top judge to rule on the matter himself, without a jury.
But the judge, Mr Justice Eady, who also presided over the first hearing of the case, said the matter was of such "considerable public importance" that it had to go before a jury again.
The costs already run up by both sides have been estimated at more than £300,000 and, as the judge has agreed an even longer time slot than the two weeks of the first trial, those costs could more than double.
Adam Wolanski, for Mr Malik, urged the judge to decide the case himself, in order to avert the potentially massive costs, both financially and in terms of stress, for all of the litigants.
He said that many new documents, which were not presented before the first trial began, would have to be admitted at the second hearing and would require "prolonged examination" by a jury.
But Mr Justice Eady said much of the new documentation that would go before the jurors would be relatively easy for them to consider and he would direct a fresh jury trial.
Unless the parties reach agreement in the meantime, the second trial is expected to last up to three weeks.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article