header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

What can Sir John Major add to the Supreme Court?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. 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
Quillon Law—Neil Dooley

Quillon Law—Neil Dooley

Disputes firm expands fraud and investigations practice with partner hire

Charles Russell Speechlys—Vadim Romanoff

Charles Russell Speechlys—Vadim Romanoff

Firm strengthens corporate tax and incentives team with partner hire

Burges Salmon—Gary Delderfield & Alec Bennett

Burges Salmon—Gary Delderfield & Alec Bennett

Partner and senior associate join pensions team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Form N510—not just a box to tick
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold dives into the quirks of civil practice, from the Court of Appeal’s fierce defence of form N510 to fresh reminders about compliance and interest claims, in this week's Civil Way
NLJ this week: Delegation or dereliction?
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has restated a fundamental truth, writes John Gould, chair of Russell-Cooke, in this week's NLJ: only authorised persons can conduct litigation. The decision sparked alarm, but Gould stresses it merely confirms the Legal Services Act 2007
NLJ this week: FCA faces its toughest test yet
The government’s decision to make the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) the Single Professional Services Supervisor marks a watershed in the UK’s fight against money laundering, says Rebecca Hughes of Corker Binning in this week's NLJ. The FCA will now oversee 60,000 firms across legal and accountancy sectors—a massive expansion of remit that raises questions over resources and readiness 
NLJ this week: Instructing the right expert
The High Court's decision in Parfitt v Jones [2025] EWHC 1552 (Ch) provided a striking reminder of the need to instruct the right expert in retrospective capacity assessments, says Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: Striking back at SLAPPs
Paige Coulter of Quinn Emanuel reports on the UK’s first statutory definition of SLAPPs under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, in NLJ this week
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll