header-logo header-logo

26 January 2017
Issue: 7731 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

“One-liner Bill” under scrutiny

Leading litigator warns that citizen’s rights are at risk if Art 50 trigger is rushed

The “one-liner” Bill introduced to Parliament this week—enabling the government to trigger Art 50—may not offer the security needed to maintain citizens’ basic rights, according to David Greene, one of the country’s foremost litigators.

“Post judgment we are likely to see a one-liner bill within days. Passing the Bill and serving the notice inevitably removes us from the EU and its associated rights. It fires the bullet for Brexit. We should question the entitlement of Parliament to remove these rights—the rights of establishment, the right to travel freely etc, in a one-line Bill.”

NLJ consultant editor Greene, one of the claimant lawyers acting in this week’s successful Art 50 challenge against the government, said: “These rights go to the basics of life for EU citizens here and UK citizens within Europe, and I think it’s important for Parliament to consider them and be in a position to offer assurances that they will be protected before Art 50 is triggered.”

Speaking to Professor Dominic Regan during a post-judgment NLJ webinar, Greene went on to say: “Given the uncertainties surrounding the mechanics and nature of Brexit, it would not be impossible that after two years we could get to a situation where negotiations fail or Parliament votes a deal down. The removal of rights then will be automatic”

In a majority vote of eight to three this week, the Supreme Court found the government required an Act of Parliament to notify of its intention to leave the EU. Greene said he thought that the court might want to bring a unanimous decision but it became clear that there were differences: “In the end we expected a 7/4 or 8/3 split,” he said.

Greene added that the constant revolution in civil justice for 20 years—from the small claims limit, costs budgeting, fixed costs, to changes in practice and procedure, needed to be taken more slowly when we have the prospect of the added revolution of Brexit.

The webinar, which includes a wide ranging discussion covering: pending Brexit litigation; the dissenting judgments; the Sewel Convention, can be downloaded here .

See also LexisNexis Current awareness News team & Public Law PSL team coverage:

The Supreme Court’s judgment on Article 50—what happens now?
Article 50 litigation—UK Supreme Court rules on the limits of the prerogative and devolved powers
The Dublin case—Brexit and the revocability of Article 50

Issue: 7731 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

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