Olly Robbins, the former Foreign Office chief sacked by Keir Starmer over the Peter Mandelson security vetting scandal, has submitted a legal challenge over his dismissal.
Robbins has applied to the high court for a judicial review of the prime minister’s decision to remove him as the top civil servant at the Foreign Office, the FDA union representing him said in a statement.
The announcement comes three months after he was dismissed by Starmer following the Guardian’s disclosure that he had overturned a recommendation from UK Security Vetting (UKSV) to deny clearance for Mandelson.
There was strong support for Robbins within Whitehall, with senior civil servants said to believe he was in effect sacked for doing what No 10 wanted by swiftly passing Mandelson through vetting, and that the focus should be on the prime minister’s initial decision instead.
His submission makes the case that Starmer had no statutory authority to dismiss him as the head of the diplomatic service, and that there was “no fair procedure” and “no process at all” in the dismissal. It also says Robbins was given “irrational” reasons for being fired.
At the time, Downing Street said Robbins had lost the confidence of Starmer and Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary, due to his handling of the vetting of Mandelson, who was sacked over the extent of his links to the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The Guardian later revealed that Mandelson’s associations with senior figures in China, Russia and Israel were among the concerns raised by UKSV when it concluded he should be denied clearance. His relationship with Epstein was not among the reasons.
The FDA said Starmer should admit that sacking Robbins was a mistake, based on a misunderstanding of how the security vetting system worked, and that it was a “rash response” to the Guardian’s revelations.
In a statement, Robbins said: “I bring this action reluctantly. It would have been unnecessary if the prime minister had simply apologised for his mistake and made amends for the distress and cost it has caused me and my family. Instead, I now have to ask the courts to determine that the prime minister’s decisions were unlawful, unreasonable and to quash them.”
The FDA said Robbins’s sacking damaged the core values of the professionalism and impartiality of the civil service as it suggested its most senior officials could be dismissed on a “prime ministerial whim” without what it regarded as a fair process or a considered understanding of the core issue.
“Rather than being under a duty to tell ministers about the process leading up to the vetting decision, Olly was under an obligation not to,” the union said. “The process is independent of government ministers, who are only informed of the final outcome. This position was confirmed in a letter of 16 September 2025 that was signed by the foreign secretary, using text both drafted and approved by No 10.”
The Commons foreign affairs select committee said last week that Robbins believed he was “delivering the outcome that was wanted” and concluded his dismissal “seems to have been taken without full due process and the establishment of the facts”.
Guestions remain about the defence Robbins mounted, both of his own actions and the system through which the national security establishment vets people, and the lack of mitigations put in place to get around the security concerns.
The Foreign Office refused to hand over a summary of Mandelson’s security vetting to the official tasked with compiling documents detailing his appointment as ambassador to the US, in response to a Commons motion forcing the release of documents linked to the process.
