header-logo header-logo

Brexit in court

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

DAC Beachcroft—Ben Daniels

DAC Beachcroft—Ben Daniels

Firm elects new senior partner to lead next phase of growth

Taylor Rose—Amarjit Ryatt

Taylor Rose—Amarjit Ryatt

Partner appointed head of family and divorce

Browne Jacobson—Adam Berry & Adam Culy

Browne Jacobson—Adam Berry & Adam Culy

Financial and professional risks team expand with dual partner hire

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll