header-logo header-logo

12 September 2019 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7855 / Categories: Features , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Rogue prorogue?

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

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