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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll