19 September 2019 / Michael Zander KC

Categories: Features , Brexit , Constitutional law

printer

mail-detail

What can Sir John Major add to the Supreme Court?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Michael Zander QC on the former prime minister’s written case

The written case submitted by Lord Garnier QC on behalf of Sir John Major argues first as to why the Divisional Court was wrong in its decision ([2019] EWHC 2381 QB) that the issue was not justiciable.

Why the Divisional Court was wrong

The Divisional Court decided (at [41]) that it was unnecessary to explore the facts. ‘If that conclusion were correct,’ Sir John argues, ‘the consequence would be that there is nothing in law to prevent a Prime Minister from proroguing Parliament in any circumstances or for any reason’ (para 4).

The Divisional Court said (at [66]) that it was unhelpful to consider extreme hypothetical examples. To dismiss hypothetical scenarios simply on the ground that they are extreme was not a safe ground on which to lay down legal principles of general application. ‘That is particularly so in the present context, where many developments which until recently might have been thought to be extreme hypothetical examples have actually occurred’ (para 6.3).

It

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

What can Sir John Major add to the Supreme Court?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Categories: Features , Brexit , Constitutional law

Michael Zander QC on the former prime minister’s written case

The written case submitted by Lord Garnier QC on behalf of Sir John Major argues first as to why the Divisional Court was wrong in its decision ([2019] EWHC 2381 QB) that the issue was not justiciable.

Why the Divisional Court was wrong

The Divisional Court decided (at [41]) that it was unnecessary to explore the facts. ‘If that conclusion were correct,’ Sir John argues, ‘the consequence would be that there is nothing in law to prevent a Prime Minister from proroguing Parliament in any circumstances or for any reason’ (para 4).

The Divisional Court said (at [66]) that it was unhelpful to consider extreme hypothetical examples. To dismiss hypothetical scenarios simply on the ground that they are extreme was not a safe ground on which to lay down legal principles of general application. ‘That is particularly so in the present context, where many developments which until recently might have been thought to be extreme hypothetical examples have actually occurred’ (para 6.3).

It

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

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

Test Article

"There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’

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

NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake

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’

NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’

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

NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?

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

back-to-top-scroll