header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
19 October 2016 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7720 / Categories: Features , Public , Brexit , EU , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Brexit in court

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll