header-logo header-logo

12 December 2018
Issue: 7821 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

May vote brings more chaos

PM stands ready to deliver on Brexit, if she gets backing in leadership campaign

Britain faced yet more Brexit woes this week as Conservative MPs attempted to trigger a leadership contest less than four months before Exit Day.

The required 48 letters were sent this week amid a wave of fury that Prime Minister Theresa May postponed the House of Commons vote on her Brexit deal. May said she stood ‘ready to finish the job’.

Meanwhile, calls for a second referendum escalated after the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the UK can unilaterally revoke its Art 50 notification of intention to withdraw from the EU. The ruling, in Wightman & Ors v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU (Case C-621/18), backs Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona’s Advisory Opinion last week.

The ECJ rejected the arguments of the Council of Ministers and European Commission that the consent of all the other Member States was required for revocation. It ruled that the UK can choose to stay in the EU at any time while the treaties still apply, whether in the two-year period from official notification of Art 50 or in any extension of this period agreed with the European Council. The UK would need to make a decision to remain, taken in accord with our constitutional requirements and then duly notified to the President of the European Council.

Charles Brasted, partner at Hogan Lovells, said the ruling ‘put beyond doubt that, until the moment the UK signs a withdrawal agreement or leaves the EU with no deal on 29 March 2019, it can still stop Brexit, even in the face of opposition by the rest of the EU. 

‘If it did so, the UK could also retain its current terms of membership, including the “rebate” negotiated by Mrs Thatcher, and it would be under no obligation to join the Euro. It is important to note that the ruling only bites if the UK decides to cancel Brexit and the EU27 disagree.’

The judicial review was brought by a cross-party group of politicians and Jolyon Maugham QC, of Devereux Chambers.

Downing Street has responded that the ruling is hypothetical as the UK will not revoke Art 50.

Issue: 7821 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

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
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 
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
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
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’
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’ 
back-to-top-scroll