header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 November 2016 / Nicholas Strauss KC
Issue: 7723 / Categories: Features , Public , Brexit , EU , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Brexit: the final say

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7723_strauss

Article 50: an incorrect concession? Nicholas Strauss QC proposes an alternative line of attack
  • ​There is little point in a referendum which is advisory only, as it just throws the ball back to Parliament, so that the public vote is little more than an opinion poll.

  • The government’s best hope may be to reconsider its concession that the referendum was not binding before the appeal to the Supreme Court is heard next month.

In Santos v Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin), [2016] All ER (D) 19 (Nov), the Divisional Court decided that the government’s prerogative powers did not enable it to implement the result of the EU referendum by giving notice under Art 50 of the Treaty on European Union. Another Act of Parliament is required, in addition to the EU Referendum Act 2015 (the 2015 Act).

Government’s concession

The government had accepted that the result of the referendum did not itself provide the source of a power to give the

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
Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll