header-logo header-logo

13 March 2019
Issue: 7832 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Backstop trap remains

MPs deal further blow to prime minister’s Brexit deal

MPs dealt a further blow to Prime Minister Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement this week, after the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox QC delivered his legal opinion that the legal risk of being trapped in the backstop remains unchanged.

The government endured a humiliating defeat. Cox said May’s revisions to the Brexit deal ‘reduces the risk’ of being caught in the backstop. However, he scuppered May’s claim to have negotiated legally binding changes by stating, in his advice to the government, that there were ‘no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement’. His opinion was backed by several prominent QCs including Brick Court’s David Anderson QC and 11KBW’s Jason Coppel QC and Sean Aughey, who were commissioned by the People’s Vote campaign to draw up a legal opinion overnight.

Susan Bright, regional managing partner, UK and Africa at Hogan Lovells said: ‘What happens next will be up to Parliament—to an extent.

‘A third vote against a no-deal exit will not stop the UK’s departure on 29 March without a deal—that remains the default outcome. With a materially different deal now looking implausible, the options open to a Parliament opposed to a no deal exit will be to delay Brexit day or cancel Brexit entirely. The first will require a majority in Parliament, and will mean convincing each of the EU27 that there is a real purpose for the postponement. The second would almost certainly need an Act of Parliament, requiring a majority of MPs to vote against their manifesto positions. That is why businesses should continue to focus their preparations on the risk of the UK leaving the EU on 29 March without an exit deal.’

Issue: 7832 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll