header-logo header-logo

14 June 2018
Issue: 7797 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Brexit amendment rejected

Prime minister escapes defeat with last-minute concessions

The Prime Minister has narrowly escaped defeat by making last-minute concessions over the House of Lords amendment to give Parliament a ‘meaningful vote’ on the final Brexit deal.  

The amendment to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill was rejected by just 26 votes. PM Theresa May quelled dissent by calling Conservative rebels into her office shortly before the vote and personally assuring them of a bigger say for MPs if she fails to reach a deal, and that she would spell out more details by the end of this week.

Peers could reinstate their plan when the Bill returns to the House of Lords, giving rebel MPs a second chance to hold May to account.

MPs also won a concession from the government that there would be no physical checks at the Northern Irish border.

Several MPs expressed anger at the lack of time allowed for debate, with Scottish Labour and SNP MPs particularly enraged that a mere 15 minutes were given to the subject of devolution.

An amendment to remove the date of exit from the Bill was defeated and the original date, 29 March 2019, reinstated.

Ahead of the debate, Justice Minister Phillip Lee resigned his office to vote against the government.

MPs were due to vote on amendments relating to membership of the single market and the customs union, on the second day of the debate, at the time of going to press.

Rosling King senior partner, Georgina Squire said: ‘After Brexit, we face considerable legal uncertainty—not only as to how our court system will be used, but also the laws it will enforce.

‘It can boil down to practicalities such as buying a car directly from an EU manufacturer after Brexit, which is faulty. Where does the recourse lie? Parliament is debating broad issues, but the details will affect us all every day and are far reaching.’

Issue: 7797 / 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
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
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
back-to-top-scroll