header-logo header-logo

04 May 2016
Issue: 7697 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Should all Brit ex-pats vote on Brexit?

Calls for all British citizens to have right to vote in the EU Referendum

Up to two million Britons resident elsewhere in the EU for more than 15 years could be given the right to vote in the EU Referendum if the Court of Appeal decides in their favour.

Last week, the High Court rejected a legal challenge brought by 94-year-old WWII veteran Harry Shindler and White & Case partner Jacquelyn MacLennan, who live in Italy and Belgium, respectively. However, it has given permission for the case to go to the Court of Appeal.

Leigh Day, acting for the two claimants, argued that British citizens were being unlawfully denied their right to vote under the EU Referendum Act 2015 since the Referendum could lead to them losing their status as EU citizens and the protection of EU law. The claimants argued that the 15-year limit, established by s 2 of the 2015 Act, effectively penalised them for exercising their free movement rights.

Harry Shindler has called on Prime Minister David Cameron to push legislation scrapping the limit through Parliament before the vote.

Richard Stein, partner at Leigh Day, says he will try to take the case to the Supreme Court: “We believe that there is precedent for fast-track legislation being put through Parliament in a matter of days in response to court judgment, so there would be no need for the referendum to be delayed if the Supreme Court rules in our favour.

“Since this is a vote in a referendum rather than in an election there is no need to link the votes of Britons in Europe to any particular constituency in the UK. Possession of a British passport should be enough.”

Meanwhile, Home Secretary Theresa May, who supports Britain staying in the EU, ruffled feathers by calling for an exit from the European Convention on Human Rights because “it can bind the hands of Parliament”.

Writing in NLJ this week, Michael Zander QC, emeritus professor, LSE, accuses May of being “simply incorrect”.

“The Human Rights Act 1989 only requires the courts of this country ‘to take account’ of decisions of the Strasbourg Court,” he points out, whereas “UK courts can set aside Acts of Parliament in breach of EU law”.

Issue: 7697 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

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