header-logo header-logo

05 November 2018 / Dr Michael Arnheim
Issue: 7816 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Lord Neuberger’s salutary warning

Parliament’s power to revoke any court decision is woefully under-utilised, says Dr Michael Arnheim

Shortly before his retirement as president of the UK Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger sounded a salutary warning, which, however, has gone almost totally unnoticed. He concluded his 2017 Neill Lecture to the Oxford Law Faculty with these words: ‘[I]n a speech concerned with the role of judges under a constitutional system based on Parliamentary sovereignty, it is perhaps appropriate to end with a reminder that any judicial decision can be revoked by Parliament through a statute.’

All the subsequent propositions flow from the first one; namely the sovereignty of Parliament, the bedrock principle of the British Constitution—which, however, is not as familiar to members of the legal profession as might have been expected. An open letter to then prime minister David Cameron signed by 1,054 barristers (reportedly including over a hundred QCs) on 9 July 2016 correctly pointed out that the Brexit referendum result had no binding force in law—but failed to recognise that the reason for this was the sovereignty
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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
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
back-to-top-scroll