header-logo header-logo

19 October 2016 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7720 / Categories: Features , Public , Brexit , EU , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Brexit in court

nlj_7720_zander

Michael Zander QC considers the oral arguments in the Art 50 court case

  • The Divisional Court heard arguments over three days as to whether the government can use the royal prerogative to trigger Art 50 of the Lisbon Treaty thereby threatening loss of important statutory EU rights.

The Brexit court case (Santos and M v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union) is unusual because of its political and constitutional significance. It is also unusual (or, query, unique) because at public expense a transcript of the proceedings was made accessible online within a short time of each morning and afternoon session. The transcript of the three days of oral argument runs to 586 online pages.

Critical contentions

Reading the oral argument with all the judicial interventions offers the opportunity of hazarding an opinion as to what are likely to be the critical contentions the judges will consider when coming to their decision.

The claimants asked the Divisional Court for a declaration by way of judicial review.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll