header-logo header-logo

26 January 2017
Issue: 7731 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

“One-liner Bill” under scrutiny

Leading litigator warns that citizen’s rights are at risk if Art 50 trigger is rushed

The “one-liner” Bill introduced to Parliament this week—enabling the government to trigger Art 50—may not offer the security needed to maintain citizens’ basic rights, according to David Greene, one of the country’s foremost litigators.

“Post judgment we are likely to see a one-liner bill within days. Passing the Bill and serving the notice inevitably removes us from the EU and its associated rights. It fires the bullet for Brexit. We should question the entitlement of Parliament to remove these rights—the rights of establishment, the right to travel freely etc, in a one-line Bill.”

NLJ consultant editor Greene, one of the claimant lawyers acting in this week’s successful Art 50 challenge against the government, said: “These rights go to the basics of life for EU citizens here and UK citizens within Europe, and I think it’s important for Parliament to consider them and be in a position to offer assurances that they will be protected before Art 50 is triggered.”

Speaking to Professor Dominic Regan during a post-judgment NLJ webinar, Greene went on to say: “Given the uncertainties surrounding the mechanics and nature of Brexit, it would not be impossible that after two years we could get to a situation where negotiations fail or Parliament votes a deal down. The removal of rights then will be automatic”

In a majority vote of eight to three this week, the Supreme Court found the government required an Act of Parliament to notify of its intention to leave the EU. Greene said he thought that the court might want to bring a unanimous decision but it became clear that there were differences: “In the end we expected a 7/4 or 8/3 split,” he said.

Greene added that the constant revolution in civil justice for 20 years—from the small claims limit, costs budgeting, fixed costs, to changes in practice and procedure, needed to be taken more slowly when we have the prospect of the added revolution of Brexit.

The webinar, which includes a wide ranging discussion covering: pending Brexit litigation; the dissenting judgments; the Sewel Convention, can be downloaded here .

See also LexisNexis Current awareness News team & Public Law PSL team coverage:

The Supreme Court’s judgment on Article 50—what happens now?
Article 50 litigation—UK Supreme Court rules on the limits of the prerogative and devolved powers
The Dublin case—Brexit and the revocability of Article 50

Issue: 7731 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll