header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Monarchs, judges & controversial prime ministers

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
03 October 2019 / Dr Michael Arnheim
Issue: 7858 / Categories: Features , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail
8704
The UKSC’s reversal of the High Court’s decision on prorogation is not in keeping with time-honoured principle, says Dr Michael Arnheim

In the recent unanimous bombshell decision by the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) sitting en banc 11 members strong, the court ruled that the prime minister’s advice to the queen to prorogue Parliament for five weeks was ‘unlawful, void and of no effect’, that the queen’s subsequent order in council ordering prorogation—an exercise of the royal prerogative—was accordingly also ‘unlawful, void and of no effect’, and that the prorogation ceremony itself was ‘as if the Commissioners (the queen’s emissaries) had walked into Parliament with a blank piece of paper. It too was unlawful, null and of no effect,’ R (Miller) v The Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41, [2019] All ER (D) 61 (Sep), para [69].

Case of Proclamations

In reaching this decision, the UKSC placed considerable reliance on the Case of Proclamations (1611) 12 Co Rep 74. The facts of the case were as follows. King James VI and

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
Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Read All
Are you suited to a career in prosecution?
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
LSB marks Mazur homework
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
NLJ this week: Stuck in the past?
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
NLJ this week: No automatic bar on ‘user damages’
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
NLJ this week: Next gen wealth planning meets modern family reality
The next generation is inheriting more than assets—it is inheriting complexity. Writing in NLJ this week, experts from Penningtons Manches Cooper chart how global mobility, blended families and evolving values are reshaping private wealth advice
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll