header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
18 September 2019 / Michael Zander KC
Categories: Features , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Prorogation 2019: the government’s case

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
Michael Zander QC on the government’s argument that proroguing Parliament was lawful

The government argues that the Inner House of the Court of Session was wrong in holding ([2019] CSIH 49) that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful and that the Divisional Court was correct in holding ([2019] EWHC 2381 (QB), [2019] All ER (D) 24 (Sep)) that it was lawful. The government’s oral argument is being divided between Lord Keen QC, the Advocate General for Scotland, and Sir James Eadie QC for the Attorney General. However, they presented a joint written case.

The government’s written case advances several different propositions.

Not justiciable

The authorities established that the exercise of some powers, both statutory and prerogative, were non-justiciable. Whether the exercise of a power was reviewable by the courts depended on its subject matter (‘the paradigmatic examples are decisions of high policy in defence and foreign affairs and domestic politics’ (para 56)). The reason in some contexts was the inability of the courts ‘to apply judicial or manageable standards

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
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
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
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
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
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
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
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
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll