New Brexit case launches in Irish courts

A third Brexit-related case has been launched, this time on whether Art 50 can be revoked once triggered.

A letter before action was issued in the Irish High Court today, naming Devereux Chambers barrister Jolyon Maugham QC as the claimant. However, Maugham said he holds unconditional written confirmations from several elected UK politicians that they will act as plaintiffs. Their names will be made available no later than 27 January. Proceedings will be launched no later than 27 January, and the claim will target a hearing date as soon as possible after March.

The government has said it intends to issue a written formal notification under Art 50 to the European Council in or around 23 March 2017.

The proceedings seek a referral to the European Court of Justice of the question whether Art 50, once triggered, can unilaterally be revoked by the British government without requiring consent from all other 27 EU member states.

More specifically, the plaintiffs will seek clarification of what EU citizens’ rights will be lost, for example, will the UK automatically leave the single market; whether it is certain that these rights will be lost, or whether Art 50 can unilaterally be revoked; and when they will lose these rights, for example, might Art 50 already have been triggered?

If the court rules that Art 50 is revocable then the UK would have the power to reject the outcome of the Art 50 negotiations and remain in the EU if the deal is not acceptable to Parliament or British voters.

Maugham said that, without this power, the UK would be forced to take whatever deal Brexit Secretary David Davis managed to achieve or leave with no deal on important economic and social issues, including access for British firms to the single market, and the rights of British citizens living, travelling or wishing to retire in Europe.

Maugham said: “The UK must retain sovereignty over the shape of its future relationship with the EU. 

“If we change our minds we must be able to withdraw the notice without needing the consent of the other 27 Member States. I want to establish clarity for British voters and deliver sovereignty to the British Parliament over the question of its future relationship with its biggest trading partner.”

The Supreme Court is due to hand down its judgment later this month on the case brought by Gina Miller on whether the Prime Minister can trigger Art 50 without Parliamentary consent. The high court is currently considering whether to allow a judicial review on a separate Brexit issue—whether the UK will automatically leave the single market (European Economic Area) when it leaves the EU. Remain voter Peter Wilding and Leave voter Adrian Yalland have instructed lawyers to argue that the EU referendum did not cover membership of the single market.