header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Prorogation 2019: the government’s case

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
18 September 2019 / Michael Zander KC
Categories: Features , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail
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
Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Law Society calls for clarity on AML
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: Turning corporate liability into opportunity
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
NLJ this week: A prince no more?
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
NLJ this week: Shareholder secrecy sunk
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
NLJ this week: The expanding remit of national security law
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll