header-logo header-logo

12 October 2016 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7718 / Categories: Features , Brexit , EU , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Finger on the trigger

istock_1483946_large

Does triggering Art 50 require a prior Act of Parliament, asks Michael Zander QC

  • This week marks the beginning of the court case to determine if Parliament’s approval in a statute is required to trigger Art 50 of the Treaty on European Union to officially start the Brexit process.

The Prime Minister, Theresa May, has said she intends to begin the process of withdrawal from the EU by triggering Art 50 of the Treaty on European Union without putting the matter before Parliament. Legal action seeking a declaration that such action would be constitutionally unlawful will be heard this week by the Divisional Court, Lord Thomas, Lord Chief Justice, presiding. The case is listed for argument on 13, 17 and 18 October. 

The claimants’ case

The various claimants are private individuals. The so-called lead claimants, represented by Mischcon de Reya, have three QCs led by Lord Pannick. The so-called “People’s Challenge Group”, represented by Bindmans, have two QCs led by Helen Mountfield.

The People’s Challenge team relies on crowdfunding.

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
back-to-top-scroll