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
Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
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’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll