header-logo header-logo

05 November 2018 / Dr Michael Arnheim
Issue: 7816 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Lord Neuberger’s salutary warning

Parliament’s power to revoke any court decision is woefully under-utilised, says Dr Michael Arnheim

Shortly before his retirement as president of the UK Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger sounded a salutary warning, which, however, has gone almost totally unnoticed. He concluded his 2017 Neill Lecture to the Oxford Law Faculty with these words: ‘[I]n a speech concerned with the role of judges under a constitutional system based on Parliamentary sovereignty, it is perhaps appropriate to end with a reminder that any judicial decision can be revoked by Parliament through a statute.’

All the subsequent propositions flow from the first one; namely the sovereignty of Parliament, the bedrock principle of the British Constitution—which, however, is not as familiar to members of the legal profession as might have been expected. An open letter to then prime minister David Cameron signed by 1,054 barristers (reportedly including over a hundred QCs) on 9 July 2016 correctly pointed out that the Brexit referendum result had no binding force in law—but failed to recognise that the reason for this was the sovereignty of Parliament, which was not even mentioned in the letter.
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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll