header-logo header-logo

Court interventions by MPs: constitution in action, or under attack?

MPs' appearances before the courts are not just reserved for arguments about Brexit, say Ned Beale & Rebecca Lawrence 
  • There are very good reasons why MPs and all-party parliamentary groups would want to become involved in litigation, both by way of judicial review and interventions as to the interpretation of legislation.
  • However, there is a number of issues that MPs—and their lawyers—should bear in mind when considering an intervention.

Former Prime Minister Sir John Major’s warning in July that he would seek judicial review of any decision by the government to suspend Parliament to force a no-deal Brexit gave rise to a spate of Brexit-related cases. However, Brexit aside, recent cases—including a recent intervention by MPs in a Supreme Court hearing on a principle of company law—show MPs using judicial processes to influence government and legislation. This article discusses the Supreme Court intervention and other claims brought by MPs to explore legal and practical considerations around politicians' interventions in legal proceedings.

Background

The Supreme Court

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

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll