header-logo header-logo

Court interventions by MPs: constitution in action, or under attack?

MPs' appearances before the courts are not just reserved for arguments about Brexit, say Ned Beale & Rebecca Lawrence 
  • There are very good reasons why MPs and all-party parliamentary groups would want to become involved in litigation, both by way of judicial review and interventions as to the interpretation of legislation.
  • However, there is a number of issues that MPs—and their lawyers—should bear in mind when considering an intervention.

Former Prime Minister Sir John Major’s warning in July that he would seek judicial review of any decision by the government to suspend Parliament to force a no-deal Brexit gave rise to a spate of Brexit-related cases. However, Brexit aside, recent cases—including a recent intervention by MPs in a Supreme Court hearing on a principle of company law—show MPs using judicial processes to influence government and legislation. This article discusses the Supreme Court intervention and other claims brought by MPs to explore legal and practical considerations around politicians' interventions in legal proceedings.

Background

The Supreme Court hearing of Sevilleja v Marex UKSC 2018/0178 in May

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll