header-logo header-logo

Brexit judicial review sought

15 August 2018
Issue: 7806 / Categories: Legal News , Judicial review , Brexit
printer mail-detail

A group of British expatriates in France, Italy and Spain is seeking judicial review against the prime minister Theresa May in a bid to stop Brexit. The UK in EU Challenge group submitted their application to the High Court this week, arguing that the Electoral Commission’s ruling last month that the BeLeave campaigns spent £675,000, which should have been declared, invalidates the 2016 referendum result. The group, represented by Croft Solicitors, contend that the decision to trigger Art 50 was based on a factual error, namely that the referendum was based on a lawful, free and fair vote. The government has countered that the application is out of time and that a similar challenge has already been dismissed.

Issue: 7806 / Categories: Legal News , Judicial review , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kingsley Napley—Tristan Cox-Chung

Kingsley Napley—Tristan Cox-Chung

Firm bolsters restructuring and insolvency team with partner hire

Foot Anstey—Stephen Arnold

Foot Anstey—Stephen Arnold

Firm appoints first chief client officer

Mewburn Ellis—Aled Richards-Jones

Mewburn Ellis—Aled Richards-Jones

IP firm welcomes experienced patent litigator as partner

NEWS
Solicitors are installing panic buttons and thumb print scanners due to ‘systemic and rising’ intimidation including death and arson threats from clients
Ministers’ decision to scrap plans for their Labour manifesto pledge of day one protection from unfair dismissal was entirely predictable, employment lawyers have said
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll