header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
12 October 2016 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7718 / Categories: Features , Brexit , EU , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Finger on the trigger

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll