header-logo header-logo

13 March 2019
Issue: 7832 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Backstop trap remains

MPs deal further blow to prime minister’s Brexit deal

MPs dealt a further blow to Prime Minister Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement this week, after the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox QC delivered his legal opinion that the legal risk of being trapped in the backstop remains unchanged.

The government endured a humiliating defeat. Cox said May’s revisions to the Brexit deal ‘reduces the risk’ of being caught in the backstop. However, he scuppered May’s claim to have negotiated legally binding changes by stating, in his advice to the government, that there were ‘no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement’. His opinion was backed by several prominent QCs including Brick Court’s David Anderson QC and 11KBW’s Jason Coppel QC and Sean Aughey, who were commissioned by the People’s Vote campaign to draw up a legal opinion overnight.

Susan Bright, regional managing partner, UK and Africa at Hogan Lovells said: ‘What happens next will be up to Parliament—to an extent.

‘A third vote against a no-deal exit will not stop the UK’s departure on 29 March without a deal—that remains the default outcome. With a materially different deal now looking implausible, the options open to a Parliament opposed to a no deal exit will be to delay Brexit day or cancel Brexit entirely. The first will require a majority in Parliament, and will mean convincing each of the EU27 that there is a real purpose for the postponement. The second would almost certainly need an Act of Parliament, requiring a majority of MPs to vote against their manifesto positions. That is why businesses should continue to focus their preparations on the risk of the UK leaving the EU on 29 March without an exit deal.’

Issue: 7832 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll