header-logo header-logo

15 January 2018 / David Wolchover
Categories: Features , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Could Brexit still be halted as Wednesbury Unreasonable?

nlj_7766_moodey_0

In the wake of the start of legal proceedings against the government, David Wolchover argues that even if it is held that Parliament did validly authorise the Prime Minister to trigger Article 50, her exercise of the power may have been ultra vires nonetheless

In four articles published over the last seven months I have argued that in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Gina Miller case (R (on the application of Miller and another) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Appellant) [2017] UKSC 5 Parliament never actually mandated the government to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. Three challenges to the validity of the government’s purported notification of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the Union have now begun their journey through the British courts. One has been brought by a retired GP, Dr Andrew Watt (for more on Dr Watt's challenge, see here). The identity of a second, hitherto anonymous, claimant is known to me. A

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

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

Manchester’s online LLM has accelerated career progression for its graduates

mfg Solicitors—Philip Chapman

mfg Solicitors—Philip Chapman

Regional firm strengthens corporate team with partner hire

Switalskis—Sally Christey, Mathew Abiagom & Cyman Kaur

Switalskis—Sally Christey, Mathew Abiagom & Cyman Kaur

Commercial property team expands with trio of appointments

NEWS
Judging is ‘more intellectually demanding than any other role in public life’—and far messier than outsiders imagine. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC reflects on decades spent wrestling with unclear legislation, fragile precedent and human fallibility
The long-predicted death of the billable hour may finally be here—and this time, it’s armed with a scythe. In a sweeping critique of time-based billing, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, argues in this week's NLJ that artificial intelligence has made hourly charging ‘intellectually, commercially and ethically indefensible’
From fake authorities to rent reform, the civil courts have had a busy start to 2026. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold surveys a procedural landscape where guidance, discretion and discipline are all under strain
Fact-finding hearings remain a fault line in private family law. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Rylatt and Robyn Laye of Anthony Gold Solicitors analyse recent appeals exposing the dangers of rushed or fragmented findings
As the Winter Olympics open in Milan and Cortina, legal disputes are once again being resolved almost as fast as the athletes compete. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Ian Blackshaw of Valloni Attorneys examines the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS's) ad hoc divisions, which can decide cases within 24 hours
back-to-top-scroll