header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
19 September 2019 / Michael Zander KC
Categories: Features , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

What can Sir John Major add to the Supreme Court?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
Michael Zander QC on the former prime minister’s written case

The written case submitted by Lord Garnier QC on behalf of Sir John Major argues first as to why the Divisional Court was wrong in its decision ([2019] EWHC 2381 QB) that the issue was not justiciable.

Why the Divisional Court was wrong

The Divisional Court decided (at [41]) that it was unnecessary to explore the facts. ‘If that conclusion were correct,’ Sir John argues, ‘the consequence would be that there is nothing in law to prevent a Prime Minister from proroguing Parliament in any circumstances or for any reason’ (para 4).

The Divisional Court said (at [66]) that it was unhelpful to consider extreme hypothetical examples. To dismiss hypothetical scenarios simply on the ground that they are extreme was not a safe ground on which to lay down legal principles of general application. ‘That is particularly so in the present context, where many developments which until recently might have been thought to be extreme

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
Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll