header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
12 September 2019 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7855 / Categories: Features , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Rogue prorogue?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Nicholas Dobson mulls recent Parliamentary shenanigans & wonders how the dice will fall in the Supreme Court
  • Traces the challenges to the prime minister’s prorogation decision in both Scotland and London.

‘What’s all this fuss about Parliament and The Pogues?’, some may have wondered. However, when on 28 August 2019 news broke that Parliament was to be prorogued (stood down for a specified period) by Order in Council (ie the Queen on advice of the Privy Council), it was nothing to do with the Celtic punk band. The kerfuffle was caused by the nature and context of the Parliamentary suspension ordered by Royal Prerogative. This is the inherent power of the Crown to act on matters for which Parliament has not legislated. Or as constitutional jurist, A V Dicey put it: ‘[T]he residue of discretionary or arbitrary authority, which at any given time is legally left in the hands of the Crown.’ So (per Dicey), the ‘prerogative is the name of the remaining portion of the Crown’s original authority’.

The Queen’s Order

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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll