‘Sally Robertson considers the decision of R (GS) v London Borough of Camden [2016] EWHC 1762 (Admin), 27 July 2016 in this blog.’
Cloisters, 9th November 2016
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘Once notification is given by the UK Government of its intention to withdraw from the European Union under Article 50 TFEU, EU law will cease to apply in the UK after the expiry of two years (absent an agreement between all 28 Member States extending the relevant period). What then happens to the UK’s competition law regime, which is closely intertwined with EU law, both substantively and procedurally?’
Blackstone Chambers, 22nd November 2016
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘When the UK leaves the EU, the rules governing jurisdiction in cross-border competition damages claims will likely change. Most immediately, this will impact those who had acquired pre-Brexit causes of action for breach of statutory duty under section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972, based on Articles 101 and Articles 102 TFEU. The doctrine of acquired rights would preserve such causes of action;[1] but it is unlikely to preserve EU rules of jurisdiction in relation to them. Thereafter, the changes will impact those able to establish post-Brexit causes of action based on foreign laws, as Kieron Beal QC has explained. In either case, Claimants may wish to establish English jurisdiction, including as against EU domiciled defendants. This post considers some of the issues likely to be encountered.’
Blackstone Chambers, 22nd November 2016
Source: www.blackstonechambers.com
‘Theresa May has claimed that the Government’s plans for Brexit are “on track”.’
Daily Telegraph, 28th November 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The government is facing a legal battle over whether the UK stays inside the single market after it has left the EU, the BBC has learned.’
BBC News, 28th November 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘This report sets out the government’s position on the implementation of human rights judgments from the European Court of Human Rights and our domestic courts.’
official-documents.gov.uk, 18th November 2016
Source: www.official-documents.gov.uk
‘The Supreme Court’s most senior judge has been urged to stand down from a crucial legal hearing on Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union after it emerged his wife had posted a series of anti-Brexit tweets.’
Daily Telegraph, 18th November 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Amid a level of scrutiny unprecedented in the Supreme Court’s seven-year history, that is a headline unlikely to make it into tomorrow’s tabloids.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 16th November 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Losing access to the EU’s trade agreements would cost UK importers an extra £1.2 billion a year, according to research conducted on behalf of the Open Britain campaign.’
OUT-LAW.com, 15th November 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The High Court has ruled that the UK Government cannot legally begin the process of leaving the EU without first consulting Parliament. What does the decision mean for our rights and what happens next?’
RightsInfo, 11th November 2016
Source: www.rightsinfo.org
‘A supreme court judge has raised the prospect that Theresa May would have to comprehensively replace existing EU legislation before the government could even begin Brexit, in a move that could seriously delay the process.’
The Guardian, 16th November 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Explanatory memorandum on intention to exercise right to opt into revised Europol framework published.’
Home Office, 14th November 2016
Source: www.gov.uk/home-office
‘Shortly after the referendum on 23 June, demands were made that continuing EU membership should now be considered by Parliament, with a view it seems to stop BREXIT happening, and to frustrate the will of the 17 million who voted to leave. Indeed, the Guardian carried an article only five days later on ‘How we can stop Brexit – lobby our MPs’ (29 June 2016), no doubt as inflammatory and unacceptable to the BREXITEERS as subsequent developments have been to the REMAINERS. Fearing that Parliament was being enlisted with an agenda to defeat the referendum result, it is not surprising that the BREXITEERS should wish to exclude Parliament from the process altogether.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 10th November 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘I’m glad if it was the Lord Chief Justice’s concern about the reversibility or otherwise of the Article 50 procedure which catalyzed the current debate on whether the Article 50 litigation needs a reference to the Court of Justice, as has been rumoured, but on the face of last week’s judgment it seems that the parties at least were in agreement on the point after all: it is not (they say) reversible: R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, para 10 (hereinafter “Miller”). However, I believe that there is a far simpler, and so far as I can see compulsory, route from the Supreme Court to Luxembourg in this matter, assuming that the Crown does indeed appeal today’s ruling to that court, and that is that (a) the case turns on the interpretation of the phrase “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements” from Article 50(1) of the Treaty on European Union (“Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements”), and (b) interpretation of the Treaty, or indeed any EU Law, is the exclusive competence of the Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU”).’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 8th November 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘In R. (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin) judges had to decide, as a matter of law, on the constitutionally correct procedure for deciding whether and when to notify the President of the European Council that the UK intends to leave the EU, pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. This legal question is fraught with difficulty. The situation is unprecedented, so judges have to answer the question from constitutional first principles. Inevitably in such cases there is room for disagreement as to what the first principles are, and (more intractably) what weight each has as against the others in the particular circumstances of the case.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 8th November 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Sixty-six years ago today, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was signed by the United Kingdom and ten other countries.’
RightsInfo, 4th November 2016
Source: www.rightsinfo.org
‘The High Court judgment in Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union last Thursday made it clear that an Act of Parliament is required for a notice under article 50(2) of the Treaty of the European Union. My view is that an appeal is unlikely to be successful, but on any view we must be prepared for that outcome. The Government and Opposition should consider the form of such an Act without delay. So far, there has been little discussion about what form such legislation might take. This post seeks to begin that discussion, suggesting form, content and conditions that neither challenge the result of the 23 June 2016 referendum nor the Government’s stated timelines for giving notice.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 8th November 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The justice system could be undermined if a ruling that only Parliament can trigger Brexit is overturned, a former lord chief justice has said.’
BBC News, 7th November 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Crown prosecutors are considering a complaint that the Leave campaign misled voters during the EU referendum campaign.’
The Independent, 7th November 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The lord chancellor, Liz Truss, has broken her silence on the high court’s Brexit ruling, saying the independence of the judiciary was the “foundation upon which our rule of law is built”.’
The Guardian, 5th November 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024