header-logo header-logo

22 January 2020
Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Brexit Bill defeats

The government has suffered five defeats at the hands of the Lords on its EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill to ensure the UK leaves the EU on 31 January

Peers voted for EU citizens in the UK to be given an automatic right to stay and proof in the form of physical rather than digital-only documentation. Peers also voted to remove ministerial powers to order UK courts to depart from European Court of Justice judgments, and for cases to be referred to the Supreme Court to decide whether to depart from EU case law.

The fourth defeat concerned the issue of child refugees. Peers voted for Lord Dubs’ amendment to protect the right of child refugees to join their families in the UK after Brexit. The fifth amendment passed takes note of the Sewel Convention, whereby Parliament should not legislate on devolved issues without the consent of the devolved institutions.

With a majority of 80 MPs, however, the government will almost certainly reverse the amendments when the bill returns to the House of Commons.

Professor Michael Zander, Emeritus Professor, LSE, said the second and third amendments were ‘both on the provision in cl 26 of the Bill giving ministers the power by delegated legislation to permit lower courts to depart from decisions of the EU Court of Justice.

‘Before making such regulations the minister would have to consult the senior judiciary. In the Committee stage debate the many critics of this provision included three former Lord Chief Justices, a former Lord Chancellor, a former Law Lord and the chairman of the Lords Constitution Committee. Lord Beith moved an amendment to remove the provision, as he said, to “avoid a great deal of legal confusion and safeguard the independence of the judiciary”’.  

Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Megan Bradbury

Clarke Willmott—Megan Bradbury

Corporate team welcomes paralegal inSouthampton

Howard Kennedy—Paul Moran

Howard Kennedy—Paul Moran

London firm strengthens real estate team with partner appointment

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

NEWS
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
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll