header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
03 October 2019 / Dr Michael Arnheim
Issue: 7858 / Categories: Features , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Monarchs, judges & controversial prime ministers

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
8704
The UKSC’s reversal of the High Court’s decision on prorogation is not in keeping with time-honoured principle, says Dr Michael Arnheim

In the recent unanimous bombshell decision by the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) sitting en banc 11 members strong, the court ruled that the prime minister’s advice to the queen to prorogue Parliament for five weeks was ‘unlawful, void and of no effect’, that the queen’s subsequent order in council ordering prorogation—an exercise of the royal prerogative—was accordingly also ‘unlawful, void and of no effect’, and that the prorogation ceremony itself was ‘as if the Commissioners (the queen’s emissaries) had walked into Parliament with a blank piece of paper. It too was unlawful, null and of no effect,’ R (Miller) v The Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41, [2019] All ER (D) 61 (Sep), para [69].

Case of Proclamations

In reaching this decision, the UKSC placed considerable reliance on the Case of Proclamations (1611) 12 Co Rep 74. The facts of the case were as follows. King James VI and I issued proclamations prohibiting new buildings from being erected

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
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
Read All
Legal notice: Notice under the Trustee Act 1925

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
Emergency lawyers on call as international regulatory actions soar
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
NLJ this week: Employment law’s fine margins
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
NLJ this week: Promises broken on non-molestation orders?
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
NLJ this week: Assisted dying under the legal microscope
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll