header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

What can Sir John Major add to the Supreme Court?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
19 September 2019 / Michael Zander KC
Categories: Features , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail
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
Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: The pension split at 25
Pension sharing orders (PSOs) have quietly reached their 25th anniversary, yet remain stubbornly underused. Writing in NLJ this week, Joanna Newton of Stowe Family Law argues that this neglect risks long-term financial harm, particularly for women
NLJ this week: Exclusion zone?
A school ski trip, a confiscated phone and an unauthorised hotel-room entry culminated in a pupil’s permanent exclusion. In this week's issue of NLJ, Nicholas Dobson charts how the Court of Appeal upheld the decision despite acknowledged procedural flaws
NLJ this week: When silence speaks volumes
Is a suspect’s state of mind a ‘fact’ capable of triggering adverse inferences? Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Smith of Corker Binning examines how R v Leslie reshapes the debate
Public Accounts Committee warn of ‘extinction’ risk for legal aid
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
NLJ this week: The insider returns
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll