‘In this latest Environmental Law News Update Gordon Wignall, Christopher Badger and Natasha Hausdorff consider the recently published Environment Bill, the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill and whether public nuisance might provide a means of taking action in cases of climate change.’
Six Pump Court, 23rd October 2019
Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
‘During 2019, the Brexit process has radically changed the dynamics between the prime minister and the House of Commons. Normally the United Kingdom’s government, led by the prime minister and her Cabinet, provides leadership, and drives and implements policy while Parliament exercises control over the government by scrutinising its actions and holding it to account. This is a carefully balanced relationship, although a government with a strong majority can dominate decision making in the House of Commons.’
OUP Blog, 30th October 2019
Source: blog.oup.com
‘The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill (“WAB”) is (to put it mildly) a web of complexity.’
Monckton Chambers, 25th October 2019
Source: www.monckton.com
‘In this post, I make a preliminary attempt at assessing the provision made in the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill – or WAB – for the scrutiny of the legislative powers which it delegates to the executive. My conclusions are not positive. The scrutiny procedures it seeks to enact are inadequate – so inadequate that it would be a constitutional mistake for Parliament to approve this aspect of the WAB without significant amendment. At the very least (or so I suggest) the Bill ought to be amended to incorporate the so-called “sifting process” developed for equivalent delegated powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (EUWA). Better still, this should be seen as an opportunity to embrace further incremental improvements on that process.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 24th October 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Scotland’s highest court is to consider whether Prime Minister Boris Johnson has fully complied with a law requiring him to ask for a Brexit delay.’
BBC News, 21st October 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The government has pledged to not use Henry VIII powers to make Brexit legislation after a public law charity threatened legal action.’
Law Society's Gazette, 17th October 2019
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘EU citizens and their family members could gain the right to appeal decisions on their applications for settled status in the event of a no-deal Brexit.’
Rights Info, 15th October 2019
Source: rightsinfo.org
‘This is the second of a two-part discussion of this theme. The first part addressed the obligations under the Benn Act and the legal response to attempts to frustrate it; this second part addresses non-confidence motions, resignation and change of Government. Heading numbering is continued from Part 1.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 10th October 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘This is the first of a two-part discussion of this theme. This first part addresses the obligations under the Benn Act and the legal response to attempts to frustrate it; the second part will address non-confidence motions, resignation and change of Government.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 9th October 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘In the case of The UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill – A Reference by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland, the Supreme Court briefly directed its focus to its understanding of the nature of “nullity” following a finding of administrative unlawfulness. Its approach surprised some commentators, but in this post I will suggest that, far from being completely novel, the distinctions it appears to draw are familiar within the law of habeas corpus. This comparison will, I suggest, cast light upon the shifting and somewhat complex idea of “nullity” in UK public law.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 8th October 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘It was a “one off”. A conclusive determination on a series of seismic constitutional clashes: representative democracy versus direct democracy, the executive versus Parliament, and the role of the Court in the separation of powers. Judges examining the constitution against a seething political background. But the lions emerged from beneath the throne, unanimously, in a judgment that unlocked the doors of Parliament and clearly, soberly reasserted our sovereign legislature.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 9th October 2019
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘Writing only weeks before the (re)scheduled date of UK withdrawal from the EU, there seems little of which to be certain: it is still uncertain whether the UK will withdraw on a ‘No-Deal’ basis, or under a Withdrawal Agreement. Whatever the process of withdrawal, however, there should be no doubt that it will have a negative impact on the system of rights protection in the UK. Beyond the immediate loss of rights and remedies which arise directly from EU membership, the legal process of withdrawal has already indicated this negative impact: under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights will not be retained, just as general principles (including recognisably fundamental rights) are retained only where they have been recognised by EU case law but given no right of action or remedy. The 2018 Act also follows similar Brexit legislation in delegating wide legislative power to the executive (unprecedented in scale and scope) to amend or repeal retained EU law. While the cumulative effect of Brexit is as yet near-impossible to fully gauge, the aim of this post is to introduce four categories of risk to the protection of rights posed by the Brexit process.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 7th October 2019
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘Boris Johnson seems caught in an impossible bind. The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act – the Benn Act for short – obliges him to seek an extension of Article 50 on 19 October. He can extend, honour the law, but break his promises. He can refuse to extend, honour his promises, but break the law. Or he can resign. The Benn Act appears to trap the Prime Minister between these unpalatable options. Nevertheless, he may be able to escape. For the Act may ask the impossible.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 1st October 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘On 24 September, the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Prime Minister’s advice to prorogue Parliament was unlawful, and that the resulting Order in Council and subsequent prorogation were ‘null, void and of no effect’. The litigation on the justiciability of prorogation and the lawfulness of the Prime Ministerial advice has led to one of the most engaging constitutional cases of recent times. As observers at the High Court and Supreme Court hearings, this post considers the context of the ruling, and certain striking implications of the judgment for the current and future Prime Ministers.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 2nd October 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘For at least four centuries the courts have contested the claims of monarchs to untrammelled authority. ‘The king,’ Chief Justice Coke said in 1611, ‘hath no prerogative but what the law of the land allows him.’ Although the historic settlement of 1688-89, which gave us today’s constitutional monarchy, left in existence a wide swathe of prerogative powers, these have become subject to two governing principles. One is that they cannot be enlarged. The other is that both their constitutional extent and their lawful use are subject to judicial review. If the rule of law is to mean anything, it has to mean this.’
London Review of Books, 10th October 2019
Source: www.lrb.co.uk
‘Emma-Louise Fenelon talks to Jo Moore and Jon Metzer from 1 Crown Office Row about the UK Supreme Court decision in R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry & Ors v Advocate General for Scotland.’
Law Pod UK, 27th September 2019
Source: audioboom.com
‘It is a truism that Brexit will have a significant impact on banks and the wider financial services industry. The loss of passports by UK firms has received some attention from the non-specialist media, and is relatively well-understood. However, the loss of passports, significant as it is, is just one of many issues. Others have received no or little coverage outside the industry. In this blog, we will touch upon some of them. To do so, we need to step back and consider the very legal nature of a bank.’
OUP Blog, 30th September 2019
Source: blog.oup.com
‘Next Tuesday, 1 October, marks the 10th anniversary of the supreme court. Over the past decade, its neo-gothic portico, beneath which lawyers, litigants, protesters and politicians parade, has become an increasingly recognisable feature of national life.’
The Guardian, 26th September 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Yesterday the Supreme Court handed down its unanimous judgement in Cherry and Others v The Advocate General and Miller v the Prime Minister. The court found that the Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue parliament was unlawful and, consequently, null and void. This article aims to identify some of the immediate constitutional and political impacts of that decision.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 26th September 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The decision of the Supreme Court is remarkable for many reasons. One is that it was produced in such a short time. Another, of immense importance, is that it is unanimous. A third is that it rejects the reasoning of the Divisional Court’s unanimous decision given by the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President that the issue was not justiciable.’
New Law Journal, 24th September 2019
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025