header-logo header-logo

25 September 2019
Issue: 7857 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Prorogation ruling stirs debate

The Supreme Court’s seismic ruling that the prime minister’s advice to the Queen to suspend Parliament was both justiciable and unlawful prompts constitutional questions, a senior lawyer has said.

The unanimous judgment by 11 Justices this week rendered the order in council to prorogue Parliament null, void and of no effect. Lady Hale, president of the Supreme Court, said Parliament had ‘not been prorogued’.

David Greene, senior partner at Edwin Coe and NLJ consultant editor, said: ‘The condemnation of a prime minister’s conduct by our highest court of law is of the ultimate constitutional importance.

‘This and the Article 50 judgment set the parameters of our constitution. But they also raise issues on the nature of our constitution. Has the uncodified constitution had its day or does the flexibility inherent in its conventions provide sufficiently for modern politics as now policed by the courts?

‘There are mixed views with the common law feel to our constitutional arrangements still favoured. The Shadow Chancellor announced the other day the creation of a constitutional right to access to justice. Article 6 in the European Convention and the rights in the Charter of Fundamental Rights already prescribe but obviously Labour is thinking of something more directive and codified. That tends towards a codified constitution maintaining the statutory drift towards codification in “constitutional” statutes such as the European Communities Act and the Human Rights Act.

‘When the dust has settled this debate will be reignited.’

Richard Atkins QC, chair of the Bar Council, said he hoped there would ‘now be a period of calm reflection and that we do not see any comments using inflammatory language or which seek to vilify the judges or lawyers involved in the Brexit (or any) litigation.’ However, several newspaper headlines attacked the judges' decision while the prime minister himself said he disagreed with the judgment. 

Robert Buckland QC, Lord Chancellor, has since said: ‘We must all remember that our world-class judiciary always acts free from political motivation or influence and that the rule of law is the basis of our democracy, for all seasons. Personal attacks on judges from any quarter are completely unacceptable.’

Issue: 7857 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll